There is something about the dawning of a new year that reveals the Nostradamus hidden in many of us. Everyone from political pundits to economists weigh in with forecasts and predictions for the upcoming 12 months. Most prognosis turn out to be erroneous, but thankfully, quickly forgotten.
If he were alive today, Nostradamus might be amused by the number of imitators who issue prognostications. In his day, the 16th century French philosopher, who studied astrology and various occult sciences, had few disciples. It wasn't until after his death that he found fame.
Claims have been made over the years by ardent apostles that Nostradamus predicted everything from the rise of Adolph Hitler to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in the more than 6,338 prophecies he penned in a number of volumes.
Unlike the prolific Frenchman, these annual predictions will be limited to ten. However, in the spirit of Nostradamus, this year we confess to using unscientific tools, such as Ouija boards, crystal balls, hallucinogenic mushrooms and a spiritual seance, to aid in the prophecies.
1. After a long bull run, the Dow comes thudding down as rising interest rates, a strong dollar, the spiraling junk bond crisis and a soft global economy weigh on U.S. stocks. The Dow finishes at 16,600 after another roller coaster year, exacerbated by an all too familiar tech bubble. Without the Federal Reserve propping up the market, stocks suddenly look pricey causing investors to flee for the exits.
2. For the eleventh straight year, the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) under performs, finishing at 2.4 percent. U.S. economic growth has not reached the 3.0 percent benchmark for a robust economy since 2005, the longest swoon in the modern era. A strengthening dollar, slower demand for resources and global economic weakness, especially in China, will undermine America's economic comeback.
3. The Federal Reserve raises interest rates by 0.25 points in the first quarter of the new year, but then drops plans to increase the key standard any further because economic signals are flashing yellow. By year's end, the Fed rate is 0.50 percent instead of the 1% chairwoman Janet Yellen had predicted. The anemic stock market also weighs on the Fed's decision.
4. With smartphone penetration levels rising to all-time highs, the big manufacturers, like Apple and Samsung, branch out into new businesses. Competition and price-cutting squeeze margins, leading the major players to launch a buying spree. Apple, with $200 billion in cash, will make a key acquisition to advance its goal of dominating the self-driving automobile market.
5. After years of dashed hopes and 413 unsuccessful clinical trials, a promising new drug appears on the market to slow the signs of Alzheimer's disease. There are 93 drugs currently in the pipeline as pharmaceutical firms invest millions in research to capture the mushrooming market created by the aging of America. An estimated $226 billion was spent in 2015 for the care of Alzheimer's patients.
6. State-sponsored cyber attacks reach epidemic proportions, culminating with an attack on a power substation that shuts down electricity to an American city. After years of warnings about the vulnerability of the nation's electric grid, the power disruption finally mobilizes the industry to harden their systems against cyber terrorist threats.
7. Crude oil prices briefly rise after the holiday driving spike, but the cost of a barrel ends the year at below $42. Excessive stockpiles of crude oil, OPEC's increased production and booming U.S. oil exports produce a worldwide glut that keeps average annual prices at the pump below $2.05 per gallon. Big oil companies begin lay-offs as profits slump and their stock prices tumble.
8. President Obama issues an executive order aimed at making it harder for Americans to purchase guns with stricter background checks and bans on some weapons, fueling a Second Amendment fight that goes all the way to the Supreme Court. Mr. Obama's directive thrusts gun control to the front as an issue in the presidential election.
9. Iran is accused of breaking the nuclear agreement it signed by secretly increasing its supply of centrifuges and building a second underground facility. President Obama demands the Iranians open their facilities to inspectors, but its leaders stall and equivocate. Meanwhile, Israel warns it will destroy the nuclear facilities if the world fails to act. Russia threatens to retaliate for any attack on Iran.
10. The presidential race comes down to Democrat Hillary Clinton versus Republican Ted Cruz. Donald Trump's lack of a strong field operation hurts turnout for the billionaire in the Super Tuesday primaries, forcing him to reconsider his candidacy. With a superior organization, Cruz outlasts the field to win the Republican primary. He picks North Carolina governor Nikki Haley as his running mate. Clinton opts for former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro. After a nick-and-tuck electoral battle, Cruz emerges the victor by the narrowest of margins, but the GOP loses its majority in the Senate.
Like Nostradamus, your scribe may be a few years off on some of these predictions. But at sometime in the future, they are bound to prove correct. It is called the law of averages, the best friend of any prognosticator.
Monday, December 28, 2015
Monday, December 21, 2015
Santa Tosses Stocking Cap in the Political Ring
Santa Claus, surrounded by nine reindeer, announced today that he was declaring his candidacy for the president of the United States. Decked out in his traditional red Christmas costume, the white-bearded political novice promised to visit every person in the country at least once a year.
With Mrs. Claus dutifully at his side, the jocular Christmas icon made his announcement at a packed news conference at the North Pole. His surprise revelation promised to shake up the presidential race, trumping the celebrity candidacy of at least one contender for the White House.
Mr. Claus read his statement from a list that appeared to have children's names written in the margins. Once he finished, he opened the floor to media questions. Here is a partial transcript from the media briefing attended by journalists and a diminutive contingent of red-and-green dressed elves.
Q: Mr. Claus, what party primary will you enter?
A: I thought about running as a Democrat, since I have been giving away free stuff for centuries. It seemed like a good fit. But my surname isn't Clinton, so I'm pretty sure I'm prohibited from running.
Q: So, you'll campaign as a Republican?
Are you kidding me? That party has like 200 candidates. They don't need another outsider without political experience.
Q: You're saying you'll run as an independent?
There you go putting words in my mouth. I prefer to think of my candidacy as a way for people to express their gratitude for the millions of gifts I have showered on them through the years.
Q. What about your age? There are references to Santa Claus in 1773 in a New York newspaper. That would make you 242 years old. Isn't that too old to be president?
A. Even at 242, that makes me two years younger than Bernie Sanders. No one talks about his age.
Q. Are you aware that the last major party candidate to wear a beard was Republican Charles Evan Hughes, who was defeated in 1916?
A. Have you seen that awful comb-over on Donald Trump? The man would look better with a beard. Besides, I think voters are looking for a fatherly figure in the White House after eight years of a man-child in the Oval Office.
Q: Will you campaign in your Christmas garb? Isn't it a little old fashioned?
A. Check out those baggy pantsuits Hillary is wearing. Talk about dowdy. Red is so chic by comparison. Besides the coat hides my ample belly. It works for Hillary, it should work for me.
Q: What will be the focus of your campaign?
A. The theme will be lowering the voting age. I think it is time we gave two year olds and older the right to cast a ballot. Heck, we let illegal immigrants vote, so why not children?
Q: Your opponents may argue you just want kids to vote because it would be to your political advantage?
A. Listen that is nothing but political claptrap. Children's futures are at stake in this election. They should have a voice in the country's direction. No one complains about dead people voting Democrat in Chicago. Why would anyone object to a sweet innocent child showing up at the polls?
Q: Where do you stand on climate change?
A. You obviously haven't spent much time at the North Pole. We have miserable freezing temperatures every day. Mrs. Claus hates the cold. We are both praying for global warming.
Q: You have no experience in foreign policy. How will you overcome that disadvantage?
A. Look I have spent years circling the globe. I know every village, town and city in every country in the world. Well, except for those Middle Eastern countries. I am known there as The Infidel Who Shimmies Down The Filthy Chimney.
Q: Do you have a campaign slogan?
A. I kinda like, "Put a little Ho-Ho-Ho in the White House." But Mrs. Claus didn't want to be known as the wife of a "ho." So, we have changed it to, "Santa Will Make America Merry Again."
Q. What about a running mate? Have you thought about a vice presidential choice?
A. I have already asked Rudolph to run as the first reindeer vice president. I know it may raise a few eyebrows, but honestly, he can't be any worse than Joe Biden. Like Biden, Rudolph will only be allowed to appear in public once a year.
Q: If you're elected, will you continue to deliver toys to children every Christmas?
A. Of course! Especially once we have lowered the voting age. It will make a second term a cinch.
With Mrs. Claus dutifully at his side, the jocular Christmas icon made his announcement at a packed news conference at the North Pole. His surprise revelation promised to shake up the presidential race, trumping the celebrity candidacy of at least one contender for the White House.
Mr. Claus read his statement from a list that appeared to have children's names written in the margins. Once he finished, he opened the floor to media questions. Here is a partial transcript from the media briefing attended by journalists and a diminutive contingent of red-and-green dressed elves.
Q: Mr. Claus, what party primary will you enter?
A: I thought about running as a Democrat, since I have been giving away free stuff for centuries. It seemed like a good fit. But my surname isn't Clinton, so I'm pretty sure I'm prohibited from running.
Q: So, you'll campaign as a Republican?
Are you kidding me? That party has like 200 candidates. They don't need another outsider without political experience.
Q: You're saying you'll run as an independent?
There you go putting words in my mouth. I prefer to think of my candidacy as a way for people to express their gratitude for the millions of gifts I have showered on them through the years.
Q. What about your age? There are references to Santa Claus in 1773 in a New York newspaper. That would make you 242 years old. Isn't that too old to be president?
A. Even at 242, that makes me two years younger than Bernie Sanders. No one talks about his age.
Q. Are you aware that the last major party candidate to wear a beard was Republican Charles Evan Hughes, who was defeated in 1916?
A. Have you seen that awful comb-over on Donald Trump? The man would look better with a beard. Besides, I think voters are looking for a fatherly figure in the White House after eight years of a man-child in the Oval Office.
Q: Will you campaign in your Christmas garb? Isn't it a little old fashioned?
A. Check out those baggy pantsuits Hillary is wearing. Talk about dowdy. Red is so chic by comparison. Besides the coat hides my ample belly. It works for Hillary, it should work for me.
Q: What will be the focus of your campaign?
A. The theme will be lowering the voting age. I think it is time we gave two year olds and older the right to cast a ballot. Heck, we let illegal immigrants vote, so why not children?
Q: Your opponents may argue you just want kids to vote because it would be to your political advantage?
A. Listen that is nothing but political claptrap. Children's futures are at stake in this election. They should have a voice in the country's direction. No one complains about dead people voting Democrat in Chicago. Why would anyone object to a sweet innocent child showing up at the polls?
Q: Where do you stand on climate change?
A. You obviously haven't spent much time at the North Pole. We have miserable freezing temperatures every day. Mrs. Claus hates the cold. We are both praying for global warming.
Q: You have no experience in foreign policy. How will you overcome that disadvantage?
A. Look I have spent years circling the globe. I know every village, town and city in every country in the world. Well, except for those Middle Eastern countries. I am known there as The Infidel Who Shimmies Down The Filthy Chimney.
Q: Do you have a campaign slogan?
A. I kinda like, "Put a little Ho-Ho-Ho in the White House." But Mrs. Claus didn't want to be known as the wife of a "ho." So, we have changed it to, "Santa Will Make America Merry Again."
Q. What about a running mate? Have you thought about a vice presidential choice?
A. I have already asked Rudolph to run as the first reindeer vice president. I know it may raise a few eyebrows, but honestly, he can't be any worse than Joe Biden. Like Biden, Rudolph will only be allowed to appear in public once a year.
Q: If you're elected, will you continue to deliver toys to children every Christmas?
A. Of course! Especially once we have lowered the voting age. It will make a second term a cinch.
Monday, December 14, 2015
Gun Solutions: Just The Facts Please
The terrorist killing spree in San Bernardino provided ammunition for President Obama's echo chamber in the media to renew their evangelism for stricter gun control laws. The media reaction was equal parts hysteria and factual fraud, rendering it counterproductive to finding solutions.
News outlets, in an effort to politicize the shootings, deliberately distorted gun violence statistics in the aftermath of the mass killings. The media relies on the shock-value of numbers to bolster their propaganda push for gun control without addressing if tighter laws would actually reduce violence.
That makes it difficult for the average American to determine the best solution for preventing mass shootings. Politicians, the media, gun advocates and gun opponents jigger statistics to suit their own positions. None of this helps the country to reach a consensus on what should be done.
There must be agreement on the facts for any serious discussion to yield effective solutions. Just doing something may convince the uninitiated that knee-jerk politicians care about gun violence, but it is irresponsible to enact laws without a scrupulous analysis of the incidents and the causes.
For starters, below are facts about shootings involving guns in the United States. The statistics are mostly derived from FBI reports, a non-partisan source for the facts on the ground. No figures from the major gun rights organization, the National Rifle Association, are used in this analysis.
Violent Crime In the U.S. is Decreasing Not Increasing
FBI statistics on violent crime show a steady decline nationally. Violent crime in 2014 was 6.9 percent below the 2010 level and the number represented a 16.2 reduction from 2005. This downward trend has existed for more than a decade.
Gun Violence In the U.S. is Declining Not Rising
Murder rates are continuing to decrease nationally, the FBI reports. The murder rate has dipped 6.1 percent since 2010 and nearly 21 percent (20.8%) from the 2005 level. Murder accounted for just 1.2 percent of all the violent crime in the United States last year.
Of all the violent deaths, a firearm of some kind was used in 68 percent of the homicides. In 12.1 percent of the murders, the perpetrator wielded a knife. Violent deaths caused by firearms have declined in nearly every year since 2009. The lone exception was 2012.
Some gun control supporters often quote total firearms deaths, eschewing the homicide data. The numbers are very misleading, since the data includes suicides. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 63 percent of all firearm deaths are attributed to suicides.
The president has cited comparisons of gun homicides in other countries. However, the data is collected inconsistently and homicide is defined differently in each country. For example, the United Kingdom excludes gun homicides that do not result in a conviction from its statistics.
Even using the flawed data, Mexico's firearms homicide rate is three times higher than the United States, based on the latest figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Gun ownership laws are much stricter in Mexico than in the U.S.
Ten American Cities Account For 20 Percent Of All Gun Violence
Murderous shooting rampages have been a chronic problem in a handful of American cities. Chicago has consistently ranked among the top three cities with the most murders since 1985. Yet the city has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.
The ten most dangerous cities in order are Chicago, New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Houston, New Orleans, Memphis and Dallas. The cities are ranked by the total number of murders reported in 2013, the latest year for which statistics are available.
Subtract the gun deaths from those ten cities and national firearm violence figures have decreased significantly over the last decade.
Gun Ownership Has Risen as Gun Violence Has Fallen
There is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crimes. While gun murders have fallen, the number of people in the United States with firearms has skyrocketed. A 2012 Congressional Research Service report estimated there were 242 million firearms in the hands of civilians.
A recent Washington Post report estimated today's figure at roughly 357 million guns. The news organization's conclusion was based on data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). ATF figures show U.S. gun production has almost doubled since 2009.
Mass Shooting Data Lacks Credibility
Democrats have used data purporting to show that the U.S. has suffered 353 mass shootings this year, killing 462 people and injuring 1,312. The figures are not credible. The numbers come from a crowd-sourced website shootingtracker.com, which admits its contributors are non-professionals.
There are conflicting statistics from a variety of legitimate sources, including the FBI, because for years the agency had no official definition of a "mass shooting" on its books. However, in 2014 the agency defined a "mass killing" as an incident with three or more fatalities. That makes it impossible to compare today's numbers with past years.
Depending on your source, the number of mass shootings in the United States this year ranges from 353 to four. The lack of authentic data leads many to jump to conclusions about gun laws that are not supported by the facts.
For example, The Washington Post fact checker crew posted data this month analyzing the four worst mass shootings since 2012, concluding gun laws would not have prevented the carnage. In fact, in most of the slayings, current laws were either ignored or guns were illegally obtained.
Whatever your views on gun laws, the preponderance of data suggests there is no link between the number of individuals with firearms and gun crime. Yet the public perception created by the news media is exactly the opposite. This is a disservice to an honest debate about reducing mass shootings.
Americans need to be armed with the facts about gun violence to keep politicians from manipulating data to advance their agenda on firearm laws. This much is clear from the facts. The enemy is not law-abiding American gun owners.
News outlets, in an effort to politicize the shootings, deliberately distorted gun violence statistics in the aftermath of the mass killings. The media relies on the shock-value of numbers to bolster their propaganda push for gun control without addressing if tighter laws would actually reduce violence.
That makes it difficult for the average American to determine the best solution for preventing mass shootings. Politicians, the media, gun advocates and gun opponents jigger statistics to suit their own positions. None of this helps the country to reach a consensus on what should be done.
There must be agreement on the facts for any serious discussion to yield effective solutions. Just doing something may convince the uninitiated that knee-jerk politicians care about gun violence, but it is irresponsible to enact laws without a scrupulous analysis of the incidents and the causes.
For starters, below are facts about shootings involving guns in the United States. The statistics are mostly derived from FBI reports, a non-partisan source for the facts on the ground. No figures from the major gun rights organization, the National Rifle Association, are used in this analysis.
Violent Crime In the U.S. is Decreasing Not Increasing
FBI statistics on violent crime show a steady decline nationally. Violent crime in 2014 was 6.9 percent below the 2010 level and the number represented a 16.2 reduction from 2005. This downward trend has existed for more than a decade.
Gun Violence In the U.S. is Declining Not Rising
Murder rates are continuing to decrease nationally, the FBI reports. The murder rate has dipped 6.1 percent since 2010 and nearly 21 percent (20.8%) from the 2005 level. Murder accounted for just 1.2 percent of all the violent crime in the United States last year.
Of all the violent deaths, a firearm of some kind was used in 68 percent of the homicides. In 12.1 percent of the murders, the perpetrator wielded a knife. Violent deaths caused by firearms have declined in nearly every year since 2009. The lone exception was 2012.
Some gun control supporters often quote total firearms deaths, eschewing the homicide data. The numbers are very misleading, since the data includes suicides. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 63 percent of all firearm deaths are attributed to suicides.
The president has cited comparisons of gun homicides in other countries. However, the data is collected inconsistently and homicide is defined differently in each country. For example, the United Kingdom excludes gun homicides that do not result in a conviction from its statistics.
Even using the flawed data, Mexico's firearms homicide rate is three times higher than the United States, based on the latest figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Gun ownership laws are much stricter in Mexico than in the U.S.
Ten American Cities Account For 20 Percent Of All Gun Violence
Murderous shooting rampages have been a chronic problem in a handful of American cities. Chicago has consistently ranked among the top three cities with the most murders since 1985. Yet the city has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.
The ten most dangerous cities in order are Chicago, New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Houston, New Orleans, Memphis and Dallas. The cities are ranked by the total number of murders reported in 2013, the latest year for which statistics are available.
Subtract the gun deaths from those ten cities and national firearm violence figures have decreased significantly over the last decade.
Gun Ownership Has Risen as Gun Violence Has Fallen
There is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crimes. While gun murders have fallen, the number of people in the United States with firearms has skyrocketed. A 2012 Congressional Research Service report estimated there were 242 million firearms in the hands of civilians.
A recent Washington Post report estimated today's figure at roughly 357 million guns. The news organization's conclusion was based on data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). ATF figures show U.S. gun production has almost doubled since 2009.
Mass Shooting Data Lacks Credibility
Democrats have used data purporting to show that the U.S. has suffered 353 mass shootings this year, killing 462 people and injuring 1,312. The figures are not credible. The numbers come from a crowd-sourced website shootingtracker.com, which admits its contributors are non-professionals.
There are conflicting statistics from a variety of legitimate sources, including the FBI, because for years the agency had no official definition of a "mass shooting" on its books. However, in 2014 the agency defined a "mass killing" as an incident with three or more fatalities. That makes it impossible to compare today's numbers with past years.
Depending on your source, the number of mass shootings in the United States this year ranges from 353 to four. The lack of authentic data leads many to jump to conclusions about gun laws that are not supported by the facts.
For example, The Washington Post fact checker crew posted data this month analyzing the four worst mass shootings since 2012, concluding gun laws would not have prevented the carnage. In fact, in most of the slayings, current laws were either ignored or guns were illegally obtained.
Whatever your views on gun laws, the preponderance of data suggests there is no link between the number of individuals with firearms and gun crime. Yet the public perception created by the news media is exactly the opposite. This is a disservice to an honest debate about reducing mass shootings.
Americans need to be armed with the facts about gun violence to keep politicians from manipulating data to advance their agenda on firearm laws. This much is clear from the facts. The enemy is not law-abiding American gun owners.
Monday, December 7, 2015
Vetting Obama's Claims About Syrian Refugees
President Obama and Democrats are openly mocking Americans who have expressed concerns about the impending flood of Syrian refugees into the country. Opponents of the Obama refugee doctrine have been dismissed as intolerant, anti-immigrant, bigoted and hateful.
The vitriolic verbal attacks are aimed at shutting down legitimate debate over the president's plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees this year, 85,000 in 2016 and 100,000 more in 2017 after Mr. Obama leaves office. About 2,200 Syrian refugees have been granted asylum in the last four years.
In ridiculing his critics, the president has made statements about the extensive vetting process for refugees designed to deter potential terrorists from entering the U.S. His claims have mostly gone unchallenged by a sympathetic media. However, the facts don't support Mr. Obama's rhetoric.
Here is a list of Mr. Obama's assertions with the accompanying facts that offer contradictory evidence to the president's statements.
"People should remember that no refugee can enter our borders until they undergo the highest security checks of anyone traveling to the United States," the president has steadfastly maintained.
The security vetting process is flawed and offers no guarantee terrorists will be blocked from entering the country. As proof, Senator Jeff Sessions recently released a list of 12 refugees who were allowed into the country this year and were subsequently arrested for conspiring to commit terrorism or for providing support to terrorists.
Moreover, FBI Director James Comey acknowledged last month that federal agencies had no fool-proof method to conduct background checks on refugees. "If we don't know much about somebody, there won't be anything in our data," he confided. "I can't sit here and offer anybody absolute assurance that there's no risk associated with this."
Unlike many Middle Eastern refugees, Syrians are more likely to sympathize with ISIS. A recent opinion poll by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies shows that 13 percent of Syrian refugees hold positive views of the terrorist group. That is an alarming number that underscores the need for a thorough vetting.
In the last week, Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar from Laredo on the Texas border revealed that groups of Syrians are already slipping into the U.S. from Mexico, surrendering to Border Patrol and requesting political asylum. The new arrivals can skip the vetting period and have the right to settle wherever they want in the U.S. under current immigration policy, asserts Cuellar.
The Congressman warns that likely more Syrians will use the same route into the United States and called for federal action to prevent a potential flood of Middle Eastern refugees through America's porous southern border.
Mr. Obama and other Democrats often contend that refugees are "not a burden" on America and represent "valuable, hardworking" additions to our communities.
While it is understandable that refugees may have difficulty securing a job, many are winding up on the government dole.
According this year's Annual Report to Congress by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), 39 percent of refugees received public assistance, 56 percent went on Medicaid, 74 percent signed up for food stamps and 23 percent obtained public housing assistance in fiscal year 2013. This year the ORR agency has spent nearly $1 billion ($999.4 million) to resettle and provide benefits to refugees.
"But they're (Republicans) scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion," Mr. Obama has argued.
Mr. Obama acts as if Republicans want to limit the number of refugees coming to America. Not many people are aware that it is the president who sets a ceiling each year on refugees. For fiscal year 2015, Mr. Obama fixed the number at 70,000. He made that decision, not Congress.
This assertion about widows and children is a canard used by Mr. Obama to tar his opponents. He knows it is not true. Republicans and many Americans are frightened of the prospect of adult refugees entering the country with the intent to kill and maim citizens.
For example, in 2013 two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky were arrested after they made claims they used explosive devices to kill U.S. soldiers in their country and were plotting attacks on our homeland. In another case, a Uzbek refugee in Idaho was found guilty of stockpiling explosives in support of a terrorist organization.
The Boston marathon bombers, who immigrated from Chechnya, were granted asylum in the United States, before killing three and injuring more than 250 people. Authorities claim they were fully vetted before being allowed in the country. That suggests the current system is unreliable.
The recent massacre in San Bernardino, California, was another wake-up call for the country's terror guardians. One of the killers, Tashfeen Malik, entered the country on a fiancee visa after being screened for jihadist connections.
How many more examples does the president need before he owns up to the fact there is no way to assure Americans that not a single Syrian refugee who enters in the country is a potential terrorist?
This is a rhetorical question. Mr. Obama knows that even the world's best vetting system cannot identify every terrorist threat. It would be refreshing to hear the president admit it. Instead, he disparages those with relevant apprehensions, spawning divisiveness over the issue.
Before another Syrian refugee is granted asylum, the United States needs to bolster its vetting process, implement increased screening for Middle Eastern applicants, improve the sharing of terrorist data across government agencies and enhance monitoring of the resettlement process.
Without these changes, no one, including President Obama, can assure Americans that newly arriving refugees will not pose a terrorist threat to the country.
The vitriolic verbal attacks are aimed at shutting down legitimate debate over the president's plan to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees this year, 85,000 in 2016 and 100,000 more in 2017 after Mr. Obama leaves office. About 2,200 Syrian refugees have been granted asylum in the last four years.
In ridiculing his critics, the president has made statements about the extensive vetting process for refugees designed to deter potential terrorists from entering the U.S. His claims have mostly gone unchallenged by a sympathetic media. However, the facts don't support Mr. Obama's rhetoric.
Here is a list of Mr. Obama's assertions with the accompanying facts that offer contradictory evidence to the president's statements.
"People should remember that no refugee can enter our borders until they undergo the highest security checks of anyone traveling to the United States," the president has steadfastly maintained.
The security vetting process is flawed and offers no guarantee terrorists will be blocked from entering the country. As proof, Senator Jeff Sessions recently released a list of 12 refugees who were allowed into the country this year and were subsequently arrested for conspiring to commit terrorism or for providing support to terrorists.
Moreover, FBI Director James Comey acknowledged last month that federal agencies had no fool-proof method to conduct background checks on refugees. "If we don't know much about somebody, there won't be anything in our data," he confided. "I can't sit here and offer anybody absolute assurance that there's no risk associated with this."
Unlike many Middle Eastern refugees, Syrians are more likely to sympathize with ISIS. A recent opinion poll by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies shows that 13 percent of Syrian refugees hold positive views of the terrorist group. That is an alarming number that underscores the need for a thorough vetting.
In the last week, Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar from Laredo on the Texas border revealed that groups of Syrians are already slipping into the U.S. from Mexico, surrendering to Border Patrol and requesting political asylum. The new arrivals can skip the vetting period and have the right to settle wherever they want in the U.S. under current immigration policy, asserts Cuellar.
The Congressman warns that likely more Syrians will use the same route into the United States and called for federal action to prevent a potential flood of Middle Eastern refugees through America's porous southern border.
Mr. Obama and other Democrats often contend that refugees are "not a burden" on America and represent "valuable, hardworking" additions to our communities.
While it is understandable that refugees may have difficulty securing a job, many are winding up on the government dole.
According this year's Annual Report to Congress by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), 39 percent of refugees received public assistance, 56 percent went on Medicaid, 74 percent signed up for food stamps and 23 percent obtained public housing assistance in fiscal year 2013. This year the ORR agency has spent nearly $1 billion ($999.4 million) to resettle and provide benefits to refugees.
"But they're (Republicans) scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion," Mr. Obama has argued.
Mr. Obama acts as if Republicans want to limit the number of refugees coming to America. Not many people are aware that it is the president who sets a ceiling each year on refugees. For fiscal year 2015, Mr. Obama fixed the number at 70,000. He made that decision, not Congress.
This assertion about widows and children is a canard used by Mr. Obama to tar his opponents. He knows it is not true. Republicans and many Americans are frightened of the prospect of adult refugees entering the country with the intent to kill and maim citizens.
For example, in 2013 two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky were arrested after they made claims they used explosive devices to kill U.S. soldiers in their country and were plotting attacks on our homeland. In another case, a Uzbek refugee in Idaho was found guilty of stockpiling explosives in support of a terrorist organization.
The Boston marathon bombers, who immigrated from Chechnya, were granted asylum in the United States, before killing three and injuring more than 250 people. Authorities claim they were fully vetted before being allowed in the country. That suggests the current system is unreliable.
The recent massacre in San Bernardino, California, was another wake-up call for the country's terror guardians. One of the killers, Tashfeen Malik, entered the country on a fiancee visa after being screened for jihadist connections.
How many more examples does the president need before he owns up to the fact there is no way to assure Americans that not a single Syrian refugee who enters in the country is a potential terrorist?
This is a rhetorical question. Mr. Obama knows that even the world's best vetting system cannot identify every terrorist threat. It would be refreshing to hear the president admit it. Instead, he disparages those with relevant apprehensions, spawning divisiveness over the issue.
Before another Syrian refugee is granted asylum, the United States needs to bolster its vetting process, implement increased screening for Middle Eastern applicants, improve the sharing of terrorist data across government agencies and enhance monitoring of the resettlement process.
Without these changes, no one, including President Obama, can assure Americans that newly arriving refugees will not pose a terrorist threat to the country.
Monday, November 30, 2015
Climate Change: Assessing the Health Impact
When the Earth began to form an estimated 4.6 billion years ago, the climate was decidedly inhospitable. Scientists believe clouds of hydrogen and helium and interstellar dust cloaked the Earth. Astroids, meteors and comets bombarded the globe before it morphed into a habitable planet.
Even today, the Earth is still adjusting, progressing through periods of cooling and warming as it continues to evolve.
Unfortunately, Americans have been indoctrinated to believe any changes in climate are abnormal. However, scientific research shows the Earth's history has been marked by ice ages, followed by shorter-term warmer temperatures, the retreat of glaciers and then the return of colder temperatures.
Researchers at the Utah Geological Survey have documented at least five major ice ages on the planet. The earliest was more than two billion years ago and the most recent one began three million years ago and it continues today. Surprise! The Earth is at the tail end of an ice age.
About 20,000 years ago, the average temperature on Earth was about 10 degrees Fahrenheit colder than today. In some regions of the world, it was as much as 40 degrees colder. Around 11,500 years later, there was a sudden 20 degree Fahrenheit spike in temperatures, the Utah scientists reported.
During the last 100,000 years, scientists have recorded sudden changes in temperatures 24 times, the Utah geologists have written. That fact has never crept it into the mainstream media because their narrative has argued that even one degree change in temperatures will produce catastrophic results.
Another "mini-ice age" may be in the Earth's future. Climate modeling by Northumbria University in Wales predicts colder temperatures from 2030 through 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity. In a study released last week, scientists estimated a 60 percent drop in the sun's activity for a decade.
Regardless of what you believe about the credibility of claims about man-made climate change, there is indisputable evidence that the Earth's climate is not static. Today's climate will not be the same 1,000 years from now as it is today, even if all greenhouse gasses are eliminated.
Against that background comes a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the potential health impact of changes in the climate. The document does not wade into the debate about what causes climate change, instead focusing on planning for the inevitable health risks.
Whether the Earth warms or cools rapidly, sudden and sustained changes will affect health of the world's inhabitants. Since climate changes unequally affect some regions and countries, the impact may be more severe in different parts of the world, including the United States.
Changes in temperatures, precipitation, storms and sea levels have the potential for increasing health risks for allergies, asthma, respiratory diseases, food-and-water-borne illnesses, heat-related deaths and vector-borne diseases transmitted by insects, the GAO report points out.
Planning for the likelihood of these health calamities is a prudent precaution. The problem is that an alphabet-soup of federal and state agencies are involved in the planning, reporting and researching of the the adverse effects of climate change on health, according to the GAO.
In its research, the GAO interviewed staff at 26 federal agencies involved with the issues connected to climate change and associated health risks. That is part of the problem. The myriad of federal agencies have shared few details with the states and cities that are on the front lines of health issues.
In its recommendations, the GAO called on the Health and Human Services Secretary to direct the Centers for Disease Control to develop a plan to assume the lead role in assessing the health risks and communicating the results to states and cities. That is a sensible first step.
Instead of debates over climate change causes, the country would be better served by preparedness to deal with health issues. Moves to levy carbon taxes, ban gasoline automobiles, outlaw coal plants and stifle debate will have a tiny or no impact on the Earth's natural maturation process.
Politicians have employed scare tactics to raise fears over climate change. What has been missing is a historical perspective on the Earth's inevitable climate evolution. Too many Americans have been duped by climate fiction promoted by activists masquerading as scientists.
Once Americans better understand the health risks, they will support plans to prepare for the inevitable changes in the Earth's climate.
Even today, the Earth is still adjusting, progressing through periods of cooling and warming as it continues to evolve.
Unfortunately, Americans have been indoctrinated to believe any changes in climate are abnormal. However, scientific research shows the Earth's history has been marked by ice ages, followed by shorter-term warmer temperatures, the retreat of glaciers and then the return of colder temperatures.
Researchers at the Utah Geological Survey have documented at least five major ice ages on the planet. The earliest was more than two billion years ago and the most recent one began three million years ago and it continues today. Surprise! The Earth is at the tail end of an ice age.
About 20,000 years ago, the average temperature on Earth was about 10 degrees Fahrenheit colder than today. In some regions of the world, it was as much as 40 degrees colder. Around 11,500 years later, there was a sudden 20 degree Fahrenheit spike in temperatures, the Utah scientists reported.
During the last 100,000 years, scientists have recorded sudden changes in temperatures 24 times, the Utah geologists have written. That fact has never crept it into the mainstream media because their narrative has argued that even one degree change in temperatures will produce catastrophic results.
Another "mini-ice age" may be in the Earth's future. Climate modeling by Northumbria University in Wales predicts colder temperatures from 2030 through 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity. In a study released last week, scientists estimated a 60 percent drop in the sun's activity for a decade.
Regardless of what you believe about the credibility of claims about man-made climate change, there is indisputable evidence that the Earth's climate is not static. Today's climate will not be the same 1,000 years from now as it is today, even if all greenhouse gasses are eliminated.
Against that background comes a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the potential health impact of changes in the climate. The document does not wade into the debate about what causes climate change, instead focusing on planning for the inevitable health risks.
Whether the Earth warms or cools rapidly, sudden and sustained changes will affect health of the world's inhabitants. Since climate changes unequally affect some regions and countries, the impact may be more severe in different parts of the world, including the United States.
Changes in temperatures, precipitation, storms and sea levels have the potential for increasing health risks for allergies, asthma, respiratory diseases, food-and-water-borne illnesses, heat-related deaths and vector-borne diseases transmitted by insects, the GAO report points out.
Planning for the likelihood of these health calamities is a prudent precaution. The problem is that an alphabet-soup of federal and state agencies are involved in the planning, reporting and researching of the the adverse effects of climate change on health, according to the GAO.
In its research, the GAO interviewed staff at 26 federal agencies involved with the issues connected to climate change and associated health risks. That is part of the problem. The myriad of federal agencies have shared few details with the states and cities that are on the front lines of health issues.
In its recommendations, the GAO called on the Health and Human Services Secretary to direct the Centers for Disease Control to develop a plan to assume the lead role in assessing the health risks and communicating the results to states and cities. That is a sensible first step.
Instead of debates over climate change causes, the country would be better served by preparedness to deal with health issues. Moves to levy carbon taxes, ban gasoline automobiles, outlaw coal plants and stifle debate will have a tiny or no impact on the Earth's natural maturation process.
Politicians have employed scare tactics to raise fears over climate change. What has been missing is a historical perspective on the Earth's inevitable climate evolution. Too many Americans have been duped by climate fiction promoted by activists masquerading as scientists.
Once Americans better understand the health risks, they will support plans to prepare for the inevitable changes in the Earth's climate.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
The Night The Lights Went Out in Paris
The City of Light had not seen such darkness since World War II. Islamic terrorists slaughtered 129 innocent people in a series of coordinated strikes on November 13 in Paris. The unspeakable horror of that night will never be erased, even in this city which celebrates life on a grand scale.
Calling the attacks an "act of war," French President Francois Hollande acted decisively, declaring a curfew and deploying thousands of military troops to secure the city. That shining symbol of Paris, the Eiffel Tower, was bathed in darkness instead of light. City life came to a sudden halt.
The tree-lined streets of Paris were eerily silent with no pedestrians in sight. Sounds of joy that normally echo from crowded cafes and bars were muted. The tense hush reminded many of France's darkest days during the German occupation of France in World War II.
As dawn shook residents from their slumber, small groups of Parisians began venturing into the empty streets. They snapped photos with their smart phones and posted pictures online as a rebuke to terrorists who hoped to shut down the city. Resilient Parisians refused to be cowered by murderers.
Their ancestors stood up to the Germans during the occupation. These spunky Parisians would again show the world they would resist those who wanted to destroy their city and their way of life.
Soon what began as a trickle, turned into a wave of humanity. Parisians streamed into the streets of their city, hastily erecting memorials to the victims. They clutched friends and strangers alike as they mourned the loss of so many. They searched for answers and found none that made sense.
The murderous rampage struck at the heart of the spirit of Paris. The worst attack was carried out by jihadists at the Bataclan Concert Hall, a legendary venue for rock music. Terrorists sprayed the theater with automatic weapons, snuffing out the lives of 89 innocent victims and wounding 99 more.
The hall is one of many cozy performance venues that dot the city. It is a temple of Paris nightlife in a city that is fond of live performances, concerts, nightclubs and unpretentious cafes. They even delight in music played by amateur artists who ply their craft in the cavernous subway underground.
The Islamic terrorists' thirst for blood was not satiated by the massacre at the concert hall. They carried out lightning strikes at a restaurant and two cafe bars, firing indiscriminately at patrons. Small cafes and bars hold an almost reverential place in Paris because they are safe refuges from tourists.
More than 100 rounds were fired inside one restaurant, La Petit Cambodge. As people scattered for cover, the terrorists kept emptying their assault weapons. The barrage of gunfire left 15 dead and 15 with life-threatening injuries. A leisurely dining experience had turned into a crimson nightmare.
The attacks were centered in and around the Eleventh Arrondissement, an administrative district in Paris. It is home to a mix of young suburban Parisians, expats and newly-arrived immigrants. There is a blossoming nightlife, featuring little bars, restaurants and quirky boutiques.
On the northern fringe of Paris, bomb explosions also shuddered the Stade de France stadium. The field was the scene of France's World Cup soccer triumph in 1998 and has hosted raucous concerts. A suicide bomber and a passerby were killed by the blasts outside the packed stadium.
As security whisked President Hollande from the stadium, most in the crowd reacted with stunned silence to the explosions. There was no panic, despite the frantic call to evacuate. The resolute French filed out in an orderly fashion, although some stayed and milled around on the stadium floor.
As word of the killing spree spread, Parisians sought shelter in their apartments. Many opened their doors to complete strangers reeling in shock. Paris taxi drivers shuttled people to their destinations for free. Everyone pitched in and did what they could to relieve the human suffering.
This was Paris at its best. This city that glitters often has shone the brightest in times of turmoil. Though tourists view Parisians as cold and aloof, they are passionate about their city, their culture and their collective resilience in the face of evil. No city reflects its citizens like Paris.
The terrorists left a deadly trail of carnage. But they never will kill the spirit of this city. Ingrained in every Parisian is the will to survive even in the worst of circumstances. The city will never forget what happened November 13, however, it will emerge united and stronger.
Calling the attacks an "act of war," French President Francois Hollande acted decisively, declaring a curfew and deploying thousands of military troops to secure the city. That shining symbol of Paris, the Eiffel Tower, was bathed in darkness instead of light. City life came to a sudden halt.
The tree-lined streets of Paris were eerily silent with no pedestrians in sight. Sounds of joy that normally echo from crowded cafes and bars were muted. The tense hush reminded many of France's darkest days during the German occupation of France in World War II.
As dawn shook residents from their slumber, small groups of Parisians began venturing into the empty streets. They snapped photos with their smart phones and posted pictures online as a rebuke to terrorists who hoped to shut down the city. Resilient Parisians refused to be cowered by murderers.
Their ancestors stood up to the Germans during the occupation. These spunky Parisians would again show the world they would resist those who wanted to destroy their city and their way of life.
Soon what began as a trickle, turned into a wave of humanity. Parisians streamed into the streets of their city, hastily erecting memorials to the victims. They clutched friends and strangers alike as they mourned the loss of so many. They searched for answers and found none that made sense.
The murderous rampage struck at the heart of the spirit of Paris. The worst attack was carried out by jihadists at the Bataclan Concert Hall, a legendary venue for rock music. Terrorists sprayed the theater with automatic weapons, snuffing out the lives of 89 innocent victims and wounding 99 more.
The hall is one of many cozy performance venues that dot the city. It is a temple of Paris nightlife in a city that is fond of live performances, concerts, nightclubs and unpretentious cafes. They even delight in music played by amateur artists who ply their craft in the cavernous subway underground.
The Islamic terrorists' thirst for blood was not satiated by the massacre at the concert hall. They carried out lightning strikes at a restaurant and two cafe bars, firing indiscriminately at patrons. Small cafes and bars hold an almost reverential place in Paris because they are safe refuges from tourists.
More than 100 rounds were fired inside one restaurant, La Petit Cambodge. As people scattered for cover, the terrorists kept emptying their assault weapons. The barrage of gunfire left 15 dead and 15 with life-threatening injuries. A leisurely dining experience had turned into a crimson nightmare.
The attacks were centered in and around the Eleventh Arrondissement, an administrative district in Paris. It is home to a mix of young suburban Parisians, expats and newly-arrived immigrants. There is a blossoming nightlife, featuring little bars, restaurants and quirky boutiques.
On the northern fringe of Paris, bomb explosions also shuddered the Stade de France stadium. The field was the scene of France's World Cup soccer triumph in 1998 and has hosted raucous concerts. A suicide bomber and a passerby were killed by the blasts outside the packed stadium.
As security whisked President Hollande from the stadium, most in the crowd reacted with stunned silence to the explosions. There was no panic, despite the frantic call to evacuate. The resolute French filed out in an orderly fashion, although some stayed and milled around on the stadium floor.
As word of the killing spree spread, Parisians sought shelter in their apartments. Many opened their doors to complete strangers reeling in shock. Paris taxi drivers shuttled people to their destinations for free. Everyone pitched in and did what they could to relieve the human suffering.
This was Paris at its best. This city that glitters often has shone the brightest in times of turmoil. Though tourists view Parisians as cold and aloof, they are passionate about their city, their culture and their collective resilience in the face of evil. No city reflects its citizens like Paris.
The terrorists left a deadly trail of carnage. But they never will kill the spirit of this city. Ingrained in every Parisian is the will to survive even in the worst of circumstances. The city will never forget what happened November 13, however, it will emerge united and stronger.
Monday, November 9, 2015
The Obama Effect: Republicans Gain Control
After the election of Barrack Obama in 2008, the national media pronounced final rites for the Republican Party. Pundits declared the GOP was too white, too old and too out-of-step with America to appeal to voters. It turns out reports of the party's death were premature.
Since President Obama pranced into the White House, the Republican Party has arisen from the ash heap of defeat to the height of domination. The GOP today controls 56 per cent of the country's 7,383 state legislative seats. Thirty-two of the nation's 50 governors are Republicans.
On the national level, Republicans have majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Democrats once controlled the majority of the local and state elected offices and ruled the two legislative branches in Washington. The decline has reached epic proportions.
How bad have Democrats fared since the coronation of Mr. Obama?
Consider since 2009, Democrats have lost 910 state legislative seats. The party once dominated both chambers in 27 state legislatures. Now the number has skidded to 11, the lowest since 1978. The party has conceded 12 governorships, 69 seats in the House of Representatives and 13 Senate seats.
Despite the historic gains, the media continues to portray the GOP as the party that preaches hate, bigotry and misogyny. It is the party in decay, according to the media cabal. The reality is Democrats have suffered their worst string of defeats in decades. Call it the "Obama Effect."
There are a few inescapable conclusions that can be drawn from the voters rejection of the Democratic Party.
Despite fawning media support, Mr. Obama's purported popularity with voters has never been an assest to Democratic office seekers. His endorsement has had little impact in the majority of races, except in heavily Democratic states. His coattails don't stretch beyond the D.C. Beltway.
In fact, many Democratic candidates distanced themselves from the president in the most recent mid-term elections. Mr. Obama was uninvited by a host of Democrat candidates involved in tight races, especially in districts where neither party held a clear majority of registered voters.
Yet the latest Gallup Poll finds 47 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Obama's doing. At the same point in his second term, Bill Clinton's rating was 59 percent. Bush's numbers plunged to 32 percent and his unpopularity led to a thrashing of the GOP in the 2008 elections.
The suspicion has been that Mr. Obama's polling numbers are padded by voters reluctant to negatively rate the first African-American president. Privately people may express misgivings, but publicly critics are afraid of being branded a racist. It raises questions about the veracity of polls.
To state it another way: the polls may not accurately reflect Americans' feelings toward Mr. Obama. He likely is not as popular with the electorate as the polls suggest, despite his two-term victories against unimposing GOP candidates.
Flawed polls don't entirely explain the nosedive of the Democratic Party. There are a couple of other factors in play. One is the overwhelming unpopularity of Mr. Obama's signature health care plan. Democrat candidates have been forced by their GOP opponents to defend the scheme with voters.
More often than not it has spelled disaster for Democrats. In last week's gubernatorial race in Kentucky, a decided underdog Republican Matt Bevin ousted a popular Democrat by duck-taping him to the Obamacare reform. Ironically, the polls had the Democrat well ahead on election day.
A third explanation is one the national media will never report. Republican solutions to issues are resonating with voters. Many GOP candidates are hammering home the message of less government, lower taxes, economic growth, tighter borders and expanding school choice.
These traditional GOP themes are supposedly out-of-fashion with voters. The media cartel has dredged up polls, pundits and academics in a propaganda campaign to suggest Americans favor more government, expanded welfare, free college, open borders and higher taxes on the rich.
Their clarion call has not swayed voters. Democrat defeats have been lost on the current crop of party presidential candidates who continue to preach archaic ideas that have been soundly rejected in state and local races. That does not portend well for Democrats chances next November.
All signs point to a Democratic Party trouncing next year. Modeling developed by the Reuters news organization shows that the incumbent president's party is less likely to hold onto the office unless the current occupant's popularity is 50 percent or higher.
History is also on the side of Republicans. Democrats have failed in four of their last five attempts to win three consecutive terms in the White House, the lone anomaly being President Franklin Roosevelt. Historically, voters usually tire of the ruling party after two terms and change horses.
All the evidence points to a Republican resurgence. Just don't expect the mainstream media to acknowledge the reversal of fortunes for the GOP.
Since President Obama pranced into the White House, the Republican Party has arisen from the ash heap of defeat to the height of domination. The GOP today controls 56 per cent of the country's 7,383 state legislative seats. Thirty-two of the nation's 50 governors are Republicans.
On the national level, Republicans have majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Democrats once controlled the majority of the local and state elected offices and ruled the two legislative branches in Washington. The decline has reached epic proportions.
How bad have Democrats fared since the coronation of Mr. Obama?
Consider since 2009, Democrats have lost 910 state legislative seats. The party once dominated both chambers in 27 state legislatures. Now the number has skidded to 11, the lowest since 1978. The party has conceded 12 governorships, 69 seats in the House of Representatives and 13 Senate seats.
Despite the historic gains, the media continues to portray the GOP as the party that preaches hate, bigotry and misogyny. It is the party in decay, according to the media cabal. The reality is Democrats have suffered their worst string of defeats in decades. Call it the "Obama Effect."
There are a few inescapable conclusions that can be drawn from the voters rejection of the Democratic Party.
Despite fawning media support, Mr. Obama's purported popularity with voters has never been an assest to Democratic office seekers. His endorsement has had little impact in the majority of races, except in heavily Democratic states. His coattails don't stretch beyond the D.C. Beltway.
In fact, many Democratic candidates distanced themselves from the president in the most recent mid-term elections. Mr. Obama was uninvited by a host of Democrat candidates involved in tight races, especially in districts where neither party held a clear majority of registered voters.
Yet the latest Gallup Poll finds 47 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Obama's doing. At the same point in his second term, Bill Clinton's rating was 59 percent. Bush's numbers plunged to 32 percent and his unpopularity led to a thrashing of the GOP in the 2008 elections.
The suspicion has been that Mr. Obama's polling numbers are padded by voters reluctant to negatively rate the first African-American president. Privately people may express misgivings, but publicly critics are afraid of being branded a racist. It raises questions about the veracity of polls.
To state it another way: the polls may not accurately reflect Americans' feelings toward Mr. Obama. He likely is not as popular with the electorate as the polls suggest, despite his two-term victories against unimposing GOP candidates.
Flawed polls don't entirely explain the nosedive of the Democratic Party. There are a couple of other factors in play. One is the overwhelming unpopularity of Mr. Obama's signature health care plan. Democrat candidates have been forced by their GOP opponents to defend the scheme with voters.
More often than not it has spelled disaster for Democrats. In last week's gubernatorial race in Kentucky, a decided underdog Republican Matt Bevin ousted a popular Democrat by duck-taping him to the Obamacare reform. Ironically, the polls had the Democrat well ahead on election day.
A third explanation is one the national media will never report. Republican solutions to issues are resonating with voters. Many GOP candidates are hammering home the message of less government, lower taxes, economic growth, tighter borders and expanding school choice.
These traditional GOP themes are supposedly out-of-fashion with voters. The media cartel has dredged up polls, pundits and academics in a propaganda campaign to suggest Americans favor more government, expanded welfare, free college, open borders and higher taxes on the rich.
Their clarion call has not swayed voters. Democrat defeats have been lost on the current crop of party presidential candidates who continue to preach archaic ideas that have been soundly rejected in state and local races. That does not portend well for Democrats chances next November.
All signs point to a Democratic Party trouncing next year. Modeling developed by the Reuters news organization shows that the incumbent president's party is less likely to hold onto the office unless the current occupant's popularity is 50 percent or higher.
History is also on the side of Republicans. Democrats have failed in four of their last five attempts to win three consecutive terms in the White House, the lone anomaly being President Franklin Roosevelt. Historically, voters usually tire of the ruling party after two terms and change horses.
All the evidence points to a Republican resurgence. Just don't expect the mainstream media to acknowledge the reversal of fortunes for the GOP.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Obamacare: America's Unhealthy Insurance Scheme
After the president declared Obamacare a roaring success, the nation's media turned a blind eye to reports chronicling the unraveling of the largest government boondoggle in history. Mr. Obama's signature health reform plan is wallowing in billions of fraud, mismanagement and insolvency.
The bloated federal bureaucracy paid for by taxpayers to oversee the implementation of Obamacare is an administrative muck up. Nearly every aspect of the health plan designed to cover the uninsured has been an utter failure. Moreover, costs have exceeded even the rosiest predictions.
When the health plan was signed into law in 2010, reports showed 14.4 percent of all adults were uninsured. Today nearly 13 percent (12.9%)of adults have no insurance despite billions in government spending. More than 32 million Americans remain uninsured.
The president has claimed 17.6 million Americans have signed up for health care coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. About five million of those Americans previously had no insurance. That means the overwhelming majority were forced to give up their previous policy.
Even the 17.6 million number is dubious. Survey data from the global consulting firm McKinsey shows that 16 percent of those who enroll never obtain insurance. That means the number of Americans covered under Obamacare is closer to 13.7 million, far short of its original goal.
For those meager results, taxpayers will pay almost double the administration's under inflated cost estimate. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected costs over the next decade will top $1.993 trillion. The president promised costs would not exceed $900 billion over 10 years.
To make matters worse, there have been a slew of investigations by government watchdog groups excoriating the government apparatus for its handling of the implementation and operation of the insurance program.
In one of the most recent reports, the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General documented the dismal performance of tax-funded insurance cooperatives that were created in 2011 at a cost of $2 billion. The co-ops were supposed to compete with private health insurance firms.
The inspector's findings were a searing indictment of the government scheme. Seven co-ops have shuttered their doors. Of the remaining 23 co-ops, 22 are in deep financial trouble. As a result, more co-ops will soon be forced to close because of insolvency.
Another audit by the same inspector general forced a stunning admission from the Health and Human Services Department, the agency entrusted with overseeing Obamacare. The department could not verify the accuracy of more than $2.8 billion it paid out in subsidies to newly insured Americans.
The IG investigation found HHS "did not have systems in place to ensure that financial assistance payments were made on behalf of confirmed enrollees in the correct amounts." Translation: the agency had no idea if those receiving subsidies met the income, citizenship or tax requirements.
The Obamacare state exchanges have fared only slightly better than the co-ops. Many of the exchanges have floundered, suffering systemic failures, cost-overruns and slipshod controls. More than $5.5 billion has been doled out to the problem-plagued exchanges.
The independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently conducted a field test to determine the viability of enrollment controls in federal and state exchanges. In its covert operation, GAO delegates applied for coverage through the exchanges.
The GAO applicants used fictitious Social Security numbers, fraudulent household income data and fake citizenship information. Ten of its 11 undercover operatives were able to receive Obamacare subsidies and tax credits from the exchanges using the bogus data.
It should came as no surprise that in August of this year the HHS Inspector General found that the website Healthcare.gov was failing to verify applicants' Social Security numbers, citizenship and household income.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration conducted its own investigation this year and revealed that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was failing to verify whether individuals had purchased mandated health coverage before distributing tax credits.
Even for this government, the level of dereliction, bureaucratic bungling and incompetency is epic. Yet the president and his media sycophants continue to unabashedly propagandize the success of the health care law, ignoring the flawed implementation of the complex reform.
For all these issues, Obamacare has victimized the very people it was supposed to help. Millions of Americans have had their insurance plans cancelled, lost access to their doctors, been socked with skyrocketing premiums and been forced to accept higher insurance deductibles.
This year alone rates for insurance sold through the government website are expected to increase an average of 7.5 percent for coverage in 2016. Consumers in some states will pay even higher rates. For example, insurance prices in Idaho are expected to spike 30 percent.
The president has left a fetid trail of broken promises on his way to proclaiming Obamacare an unqualified success. Now that the truth has been exposed, it is clear the reform has been a disaster. However, Americans are stuck with the tax bill and saddled with shoddy health coverage.
The next president must halt the charade and end resuscitation of the terminally ill health plan.
The bloated federal bureaucracy paid for by taxpayers to oversee the implementation of Obamacare is an administrative muck up. Nearly every aspect of the health plan designed to cover the uninsured has been an utter failure. Moreover, costs have exceeded even the rosiest predictions.
When the health plan was signed into law in 2010, reports showed 14.4 percent of all adults were uninsured. Today nearly 13 percent (12.9%)of adults have no insurance despite billions in government spending. More than 32 million Americans remain uninsured.
The president has claimed 17.6 million Americans have signed up for health care coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. About five million of those Americans previously had no insurance. That means the overwhelming majority were forced to give up their previous policy.
Even the 17.6 million number is dubious. Survey data from the global consulting firm McKinsey shows that 16 percent of those who enroll never obtain insurance. That means the number of Americans covered under Obamacare is closer to 13.7 million, far short of its original goal.
For those meager results, taxpayers will pay almost double the administration's under inflated cost estimate. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected costs over the next decade will top $1.993 trillion. The president promised costs would not exceed $900 billion over 10 years.
To make matters worse, there have been a slew of investigations by government watchdog groups excoriating the government apparatus for its handling of the implementation and operation of the insurance program.
In one of the most recent reports, the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General documented the dismal performance of tax-funded insurance cooperatives that were created in 2011 at a cost of $2 billion. The co-ops were supposed to compete with private health insurance firms.
The inspector's findings were a searing indictment of the government scheme. Seven co-ops have shuttered their doors. Of the remaining 23 co-ops, 22 are in deep financial trouble. As a result, more co-ops will soon be forced to close because of insolvency.
Another audit by the same inspector general forced a stunning admission from the Health and Human Services Department, the agency entrusted with overseeing Obamacare. The department could not verify the accuracy of more than $2.8 billion it paid out in subsidies to newly insured Americans.
The IG investigation found HHS "did not have systems in place to ensure that financial assistance payments were made on behalf of confirmed enrollees in the correct amounts." Translation: the agency had no idea if those receiving subsidies met the income, citizenship or tax requirements.
The Obamacare state exchanges have fared only slightly better than the co-ops. Many of the exchanges have floundered, suffering systemic failures, cost-overruns and slipshod controls. More than $5.5 billion has been doled out to the problem-plagued exchanges.
The independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently conducted a field test to determine the viability of enrollment controls in federal and state exchanges. In its covert operation, GAO delegates applied for coverage through the exchanges.
The GAO applicants used fictitious Social Security numbers, fraudulent household income data and fake citizenship information. Ten of its 11 undercover operatives were able to receive Obamacare subsidies and tax credits from the exchanges using the bogus data.
It should came as no surprise that in August of this year the HHS Inspector General found that the website Healthcare.gov was failing to verify applicants' Social Security numbers, citizenship and household income.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration conducted its own investigation this year and revealed that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was failing to verify whether individuals had purchased mandated health coverage before distributing tax credits.
Even for this government, the level of dereliction, bureaucratic bungling and incompetency is epic. Yet the president and his media sycophants continue to unabashedly propagandize the success of the health care law, ignoring the flawed implementation of the complex reform.
For all these issues, Obamacare has victimized the very people it was supposed to help. Millions of Americans have had their insurance plans cancelled, lost access to their doctors, been socked with skyrocketing premiums and been forced to accept higher insurance deductibles.
This year alone rates for insurance sold through the government website are expected to increase an average of 7.5 percent for coverage in 2016. Consumers in some states will pay even higher rates. For example, insurance prices in Idaho are expected to spike 30 percent.
The president has left a fetid trail of broken promises on his way to proclaiming Obamacare an unqualified success. Now that the truth has been exposed, it is clear the reform has been a disaster. However, Americans are stuck with the tax bill and saddled with shoddy health coverage.
The next president must halt the charade and end resuscitation of the terminally ill health plan.
Monday, October 26, 2015
Capitalism Under Attack in America
Socialism was once a dirty word in America. If a politician was branded a "socialist," the scarlet label spelled disgrace and defeat. Today in the Democratic Party presidential primary an avowed proponent of socialism has risen in the polls as his views have received increasing popular support.
How far has capitalism fallen out of favor? In the recent Democratic Party presidential debate, no candidate rushed to defend capitalism, including Hillary Clinton, whose tepid support for free enterprise seemed at odds with the views of most in the audience.
The Gallup polling firm has shed some light on the rise of socialism in a 2010 report. The results of its opinion research showed that 53 percent of Democrats have a positive image of socialism. By comparison, only 17 percent of Republicans hold a flattering view of socialism.
Among all Americans, about one-third (36%) have a positive impression of socialism. What the research makes clear is that socialism has found a home in the Democratic Party. It helps explain the improbable candidacy of unabashed socialist Bernie Sanders.
A more recent Gallup poll, conducted in June, found that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate for president. Democrats (52%) were more favorable toward a socialist campaigner than independents (49%) and Republicans (26%).
This may be shocking news to many Americans who associate socialism with Communist China or the former Soviet Union or Fidel Castro's Cuban regime. Do Americans really want a society controlled by a totalitarian government that dictates economic winners and losers?
The answer to that question can be found in the Gallup research. In the firm's poll, 86 percent of Americans favorably rated the term "free enterprise," including a majority of Democrats. Yet in the minds of many economists, capitalism and free enterprise are synonymous.
A 2014 report by the Pew Research Center on Global Attitudes and Trends found that Americans are more likely than their counterparts in other industrialized countries to believe their own efforts will determine success. That is another one of the hallmarks of a capitalist society.
This suggests the term "capitalism" has become anathema for many Americans. Democrats, especially the party's liberal wing, have demonized capitalism for years. Their propaganda campaign has been abetted by the media's portrayal of the current system as patently unfair and corrupt.
The steady drumbeat of disinformation has included false narratives about capitalism. The economic system has exacerbated income inequality, increased poverty, gutted the middle class, fueled job losses and made health care unaffordable. Capitalism is now a four-letter word: e-v-i-l.
All society's problems cannot be laid at the feet of capitalism. Capitalism does not guarantee equal outcomes in life. No economic system does, not even the socialism preached by Mr. Sanders. Yet Democrats keep insisting income equality demands equal prosperity.
Capitalism allows each person the right to their property, to invest as they see fit, to work for the benefit of themselves or their family, to buy and sell goods and services with little or no interference from the government. This economic freedom unleashes the God-given potential of each individual.
Under capitalism, Americans have grown more prosperous. More people own homes. Ingenuity is rewarded. Democracy is strengthened. Billions of dollars are spent each year on safety nets for those less fortunate. America has led the way in innovation and the reduction of poverty.
For all this evidence of success, there is little public recognition of why America enjoys such abundance. The education system no longer celebrates capitalism. You can find weighty tomes written by college professors bemoaning the human misery caused by capitalism.
Where are capitalism's defenders today? Business leaders should be at the forefront of extolling the virtues of a system that benefits job creation, investment, entrepreneurship and growth. But most cower, scared the political correctness crowd will attack anyone who touts capitalism.
Americans are allowing their economic model to be trashed without a peep. Too many people take free enterprise for granted and assume it will always be the nation's economic engine. However, a socialist president could change the current model in ways that would bring lasting economic ruin.
Rise up Americans. Once capitalism disappears, it will be too late for its proponents to recapture the prosperity that our nation has enjoyed. Raise your voices in support of capitalism, the economic system that is responsible for America's greatness.
How far has capitalism fallen out of favor? In the recent Democratic Party presidential debate, no candidate rushed to defend capitalism, including Hillary Clinton, whose tepid support for free enterprise seemed at odds with the views of most in the audience.
The Gallup polling firm has shed some light on the rise of socialism in a 2010 report. The results of its opinion research showed that 53 percent of Democrats have a positive image of socialism. By comparison, only 17 percent of Republicans hold a flattering view of socialism.
Among all Americans, about one-third (36%) have a positive impression of socialism. What the research makes clear is that socialism has found a home in the Democratic Party. It helps explain the improbable candidacy of unabashed socialist Bernie Sanders.
A more recent Gallup poll, conducted in June, found that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate for president. Democrats (52%) were more favorable toward a socialist campaigner than independents (49%) and Republicans (26%).
This may be shocking news to many Americans who associate socialism with Communist China or the former Soviet Union or Fidel Castro's Cuban regime. Do Americans really want a society controlled by a totalitarian government that dictates economic winners and losers?
The answer to that question can be found in the Gallup research. In the firm's poll, 86 percent of Americans favorably rated the term "free enterprise," including a majority of Democrats. Yet in the minds of many economists, capitalism and free enterprise are synonymous.
A 2014 report by the Pew Research Center on Global Attitudes and Trends found that Americans are more likely than their counterparts in other industrialized countries to believe their own efforts will determine success. That is another one of the hallmarks of a capitalist society.
This suggests the term "capitalism" has become anathema for many Americans. Democrats, especially the party's liberal wing, have demonized capitalism for years. Their propaganda campaign has been abetted by the media's portrayal of the current system as patently unfair and corrupt.
The steady drumbeat of disinformation has included false narratives about capitalism. The economic system has exacerbated income inequality, increased poverty, gutted the middle class, fueled job losses and made health care unaffordable. Capitalism is now a four-letter word: e-v-i-l.
All society's problems cannot be laid at the feet of capitalism. Capitalism does not guarantee equal outcomes in life. No economic system does, not even the socialism preached by Mr. Sanders. Yet Democrats keep insisting income equality demands equal prosperity.
Capitalism allows each person the right to their property, to invest as they see fit, to work for the benefit of themselves or their family, to buy and sell goods and services with little or no interference from the government. This economic freedom unleashes the God-given potential of each individual.
Under capitalism, Americans have grown more prosperous. More people own homes. Ingenuity is rewarded. Democracy is strengthened. Billions of dollars are spent each year on safety nets for those less fortunate. America has led the way in innovation and the reduction of poverty.
For all this evidence of success, there is little public recognition of why America enjoys such abundance. The education system no longer celebrates capitalism. You can find weighty tomes written by college professors bemoaning the human misery caused by capitalism.
Where are capitalism's defenders today? Business leaders should be at the forefront of extolling the virtues of a system that benefits job creation, investment, entrepreneurship and growth. But most cower, scared the political correctness crowd will attack anyone who touts capitalism.
Americans are allowing their economic model to be trashed without a peep. Too many people take free enterprise for granted and assume it will always be the nation's economic engine. However, a socialist president could change the current model in ways that would bring lasting economic ruin.
Rise up Americans. Once capitalism disappears, it will be too late for its proponents to recapture the prosperity that our nation has enjoyed. Raise your voices in support of capitalism, the economic system that is responsible for America's greatness.
Monday, October 19, 2015
How To Cut the Federal Budget By Billions
Liberals usually dredge up images of starving children, the bedraggled homeless and the penniless elderly to justify fatter federal budgets. More government spending is the remedy for every social injustice. They mock advocates of fiscal responsibility, branding them heartless monsters.
In the mind of a liberal, Washington's budgets cannot be trimmed. There is no waste, no fraud, no inefficiency, no pork in the budget. Every penny in spending can be justified. Liberals never let the facts become an obstacle to their quest to spend, spend, spend.
No one can contest the fact the liberals, often with the support of wishy washy conservatives, have won the battle of the budget most years. The result has been record-busting spending. Just consider what has happened in the last 28 years.
In 1987, the federal budget burst through the $1 trillion ceiling for the first time. Since then, it has tripled to $3.8 trillion for the current 2015 fiscal year. That is nearly $300 billion more than the previous year. Next year's budget will likely be the first one to crack $4 trillion.
Those budget increases have been built on the backs of higher levels of debt. In President Obama's first four years in office, budget deficits surpassed $1 trillion annually for the first time in U.S. history. During this spending binge, America's debt has mushroomed to $18 trillion.
For most of the 20th century, federal government spending was about three per cent of the country's economic output or Gross Domestic Product (GDP). But today your government's spending amounts to more than 20 percent of the GDP.
As the federal government has gobbled up taxpayer funds, it has become more unwieldy, inefficient and susceptible to fraud. If you need evidence, look no further than the annual U.S. government audit released this month by Gene L. Dodaro, comptroller general of the United States.
In a report that attracted scant media coverage, Dodaro said the government's own records documented that various federal agencies doled out improper payments totaling $124.7 billion in 2014. That represents a $19 billion hike from the previous fiscal year, suggesting fraud is rampant.
For the record, the government classifies "improper payments" as fraudulent spending. However, not all of these payments are the result of fraud. Some improper payments are a by-product of lax government controls, non-existent safeguards or administrative bungling.
Over the years, the situation has grown worse. Since fiscal year 2003, improper payments have cumulatively totaled almost $1 trillion. That contributes to the growth in government spending that no politician or government official ever mentions. It is Washington's dirty little secret.
In 2014, the largest share of over payments occurred in three programs: Medicare, Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Those plans accounted for 75 percent of the estimate of improper payments, according to a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.
One of the most popular frauds is the earned income tax credit claimed by those filing with the Internal Revenue Service. The government handed out $17.7 billion in improper payments to taxpayers for this credit last year. It accounted for 14.2 percent of the total improper payments.
During 2014, Medicare financed health services for about 54 million elderly and disabled persons at a cost of $603 billion. Nearly 10 percent of that amount ($60 billion) was labeled improper spending. Most but not all of those payments can be attributed to fraudulent claims paid to Medicare providers.
The waste wasn't just confined to entitlements. Improper payments during last year were found in 22 government agencies and across 124 federal programs. That is the definition of pervasive waste. The government-wide payment error rate increased form four percent to 4.5 percent in 2014.
Error rates were even higher for some popular government programs. For example, the school breakfast program recorded 25.6 percent of its expenditures as improper payments. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act had a 23.1 percent fraudulent payment rate, reports the GAO.
No private or public corporation could operate with those error rates. But the federal government gets away with it because elected representatives do not hold them accountable. The bureaucracy thumbs its noses at scrutiny because mismanagement won't get you fired.
That's why Dodaro is not optimistic about the federal government addressing this critical issue. In his report, he wrote that "the federal government is unable to determine the full extent to which improper payments occur and reasonably assure that appropriate actions are taken."
This disclosure should sound alarm bells in the halls of Congress. But sadly it won't. Washington has become jaded to the waste, fraud and bureaucratic bungling. That is an indictment of the cozy inside the Beltway cabal that talks austerity but always votes for more spending.
Until Congress gets serious about budget reform, the situation will never improve. Spending will continue unabated. Wake up Americans. Start demanding a zero increase in spending until the bureaucrats clean up their act.
In the mind of a liberal, Washington's budgets cannot be trimmed. There is no waste, no fraud, no inefficiency, no pork in the budget. Every penny in spending can be justified. Liberals never let the facts become an obstacle to their quest to spend, spend, spend.
No one can contest the fact the liberals, often with the support of wishy washy conservatives, have won the battle of the budget most years. The result has been record-busting spending. Just consider what has happened in the last 28 years.
In 1987, the federal budget burst through the $1 trillion ceiling for the first time. Since then, it has tripled to $3.8 trillion for the current 2015 fiscal year. That is nearly $300 billion more than the previous year. Next year's budget will likely be the first one to crack $4 trillion.
Those budget increases have been built on the backs of higher levels of debt. In President Obama's first four years in office, budget deficits surpassed $1 trillion annually for the first time in U.S. history. During this spending binge, America's debt has mushroomed to $18 trillion.
For most of the 20th century, federal government spending was about three per cent of the country's economic output or Gross Domestic Product (GDP). But today your government's spending amounts to more than 20 percent of the GDP.
As the federal government has gobbled up taxpayer funds, it has become more unwieldy, inefficient and susceptible to fraud. If you need evidence, look no further than the annual U.S. government audit released this month by Gene L. Dodaro, comptroller general of the United States.
In a report that attracted scant media coverage, Dodaro said the government's own records documented that various federal agencies doled out improper payments totaling $124.7 billion in 2014. That represents a $19 billion hike from the previous fiscal year, suggesting fraud is rampant.
For the record, the government classifies "improper payments" as fraudulent spending. However, not all of these payments are the result of fraud. Some improper payments are a by-product of lax government controls, non-existent safeguards or administrative bungling.
Over the years, the situation has grown worse. Since fiscal year 2003, improper payments have cumulatively totaled almost $1 trillion. That contributes to the growth in government spending that no politician or government official ever mentions. It is Washington's dirty little secret.
In 2014, the largest share of over payments occurred in three programs: Medicare, Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Those plans accounted for 75 percent of the estimate of improper payments, according to a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.
One of the most popular frauds is the earned income tax credit claimed by those filing with the Internal Revenue Service. The government handed out $17.7 billion in improper payments to taxpayers for this credit last year. It accounted for 14.2 percent of the total improper payments.
During 2014, Medicare financed health services for about 54 million elderly and disabled persons at a cost of $603 billion. Nearly 10 percent of that amount ($60 billion) was labeled improper spending. Most but not all of those payments can be attributed to fraudulent claims paid to Medicare providers.
The waste wasn't just confined to entitlements. Improper payments during last year were found in 22 government agencies and across 124 federal programs. That is the definition of pervasive waste. The government-wide payment error rate increased form four percent to 4.5 percent in 2014.
Error rates were even higher for some popular government programs. For example, the school breakfast program recorded 25.6 percent of its expenditures as improper payments. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act had a 23.1 percent fraudulent payment rate, reports the GAO.
No private or public corporation could operate with those error rates. But the federal government gets away with it because elected representatives do not hold them accountable. The bureaucracy thumbs its noses at scrutiny because mismanagement won't get you fired.
That's why Dodaro is not optimistic about the federal government addressing this critical issue. In his report, he wrote that "the federal government is unable to determine the full extent to which improper payments occur and reasonably assure that appropriate actions are taken."
This disclosure should sound alarm bells in the halls of Congress. But sadly it won't. Washington has become jaded to the waste, fraud and bureaucratic bungling. That is an indictment of the cozy inside the Beltway cabal that talks austerity but always votes for more spending.
Until Congress gets serious about budget reform, the situation will never improve. Spending will continue unabated. Wake up Americans. Start demanding a zero increase in spending until the bureaucrats clean up their act.
Monday, October 5, 2015
America's Crisis of Corruption
America has a corruption epidemic. From the White House to the state house to the school house, it exists at every level of government. This breach of public trust helps explain why Americans are fed up with the culture of corruption fostered by Washington's establishment political class.
In a recent survey by the polling firm Gallup, three out of four Americans (75%) said they were convinced that corruption in their government is pervasive. This is a watershed figure and eclipses the 66 percent who felt the same way in 2009 when President Obama took office.
Other research has found that 60 percent of Americans believe that corruption has increased in the last two years. Only 10 percent think the level of dishonesty has decreased. Those polled included a representative sample of Americans from all income, political and ethnic groups.
Perhaps, there are some Americans who think this is more about perception than reality. But a cursory glance through the FBI's public corruption files confirms the widespread impropriety that has touched every branch of government. Here is a sample of headlines from the files:
Former Texas Judge Sentenced on Racketeering Charges. Indiana City Councilman Sentenced for Failure to File Tax Returns. Former Congressman and Wife Convicted of campaign fraud. Ex-law Enforcement Officials Sentenced on Conspiracy, Tax and Money Laundering Charges.
The list of dishonesty extends for pages and pages. New Jersey School Administrator Sentenced for Bribery. Pennsylvania State Senator Convicted of Mail Fraud and Tax Charges. Former Wichita City Clerk Sentenced for Embezzling Funds. DEA Agents Charged With Stealing $1 Million in Currency.
The White House has not been immune from the disease of dishonesty. Controversies have included the the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the Justice Department's collection of phone data on reporters, Secret Service agents hiring of prostitutes and the Veterans Administration scandal.
The crookedness has created a stench that no amount of political stump speeches will erase. Every day brings a new headline and a new arrest warrant. It is a never ending march of corruption that taints American democracy and turns off voters who view every office holder as amoral.
Indiana University and City University in Hong Kong documented the level of corruption in a 2014 landmark study. Their research uncovered more than 25,000 convictions for violations of federal anti-corruption laws by U.S. government employees and officials in a 32-year period ending in 2008.
The research, which appeared in Public Administration Review, concluded that reducing corruption in government would help restrain spending for many states struggling to balance their budget. In other words, government dishonesty ends up costing taxpayers more money.
Politicians and government employees aren't the only culpable individuals.
Transparency International, a global coalition against corruption, surveyed Americans and found that a surprising seven percent admitted paying a bribe to a government official in the last 12 months. In the study, Americans named political parties as the most corrupt institutions in the country.
This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. Corruption has seeped into both parties and throughout the government bureaucracy they have constructed. Too many politicians and government workers view kickbacks, bribes, misconduct and fraud as just part of the benefits that go with the office.
Sadly, the future portends the specter of more not less corruption in government. Today there is at least one sitting congressman who has evaded payment of federal taxes. A long-term senator has been charged with accepting bribes, yet still occupies a seat in the nation's legislative chamber.
The current political class looks the other way while its members commit all sorts of iniquities. They wink and nod and pretend to care. But they don't enforce their own rules. No wonder the public mood is to throw out all the bums, even the "good" ones.
Washington, state legislatures, cities and schools need to start policing their elected officials. There should be zero tolerance for any infraction of the code of conduct. Prosecutions need to more vigorous. Jail terms need to be stiffened. The guilty should not be allowed to ever hold office.
Americans are demanding more of their government and elected officials. They have every right to do so. Honesty, integrity and morality are not suggestions for the governing elite. Those characteristics are what should be required to occupy any office of public trust.
In a recent survey by the polling firm Gallup, three out of four Americans (75%) said they were convinced that corruption in their government is pervasive. This is a watershed figure and eclipses the 66 percent who felt the same way in 2009 when President Obama took office.
Other research has found that 60 percent of Americans believe that corruption has increased in the last two years. Only 10 percent think the level of dishonesty has decreased. Those polled included a representative sample of Americans from all income, political and ethnic groups.
Perhaps, there are some Americans who think this is more about perception than reality. But a cursory glance through the FBI's public corruption files confirms the widespread impropriety that has touched every branch of government. Here is a sample of headlines from the files:
Former Texas Judge Sentenced on Racketeering Charges. Indiana City Councilman Sentenced for Failure to File Tax Returns. Former Congressman and Wife Convicted of campaign fraud. Ex-law Enforcement Officials Sentenced on Conspiracy, Tax and Money Laundering Charges.
The list of dishonesty extends for pages and pages. New Jersey School Administrator Sentenced for Bribery. Pennsylvania State Senator Convicted of Mail Fraud and Tax Charges. Former Wichita City Clerk Sentenced for Embezzling Funds. DEA Agents Charged With Stealing $1 Million in Currency.
The White House has not been immune from the disease of dishonesty. Controversies have included the the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the Justice Department's collection of phone data on reporters, Secret Service agents hiring of prostitutes and the Veterans Administration scandal.
The crookedness has created a stench that no amount of political stump speeches will erase. Every day brings a new headline and a new arrest warrant. It is a never ending march of corruption that taints American democracy and turns off voters who view every office holder as amoral.
Indiana University and City University in Hong Kong documented the level of corruption in a 2014 landmark study. Their research uncovered more than 25,000 convictions for violations of federal anti-corruption laws by U.S. government employees and officials in a 32-year period ending in 2008.
The research, which appeared in Public Administration Review, concluded that reducing corruption in government would help restrain spending for many states struggling to balance their budget. In other words, government dishonesty ends up costing taxpayers more money.
Politicians and government employees aren't the only culpable individuals.
Transparency International, a global coalition against corruption, surveyed Americans and found that a surprising seven percent admitted paying a bribe to a government official in the last 12 months. In the study, Americans named political parties as the most corrupt institutions in the country.
This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. Corruption has seeped into both parties and throughout the government bureaucracy they have constructed. Too many politicians and government workers view kickbacks, bribes, misconduct and fraud as just part of the benefits that go with the office.
Sadly, the future portends the specter of more not less corruption in government. Today there is at least one sitting congressman who has evaded payment of federal taxes. A long-term senator has been charged with accepting bribes, yet still occupies a seat in the nation's legislative chamber.
The current political class looks the other way while its members commit all sorts of iniquities. They wink and nod and pretend to care. But they don't enforce their own rules. No wonder the public mood is to throw out all the bums, even the "good" ones.
Washington, state legislatures, cities and schools need to start policing their elected officials. There should be zero tolerance for any infraction of the code of conduct. Prosecutions need to more vigorous. Jail terms need to be stiffened. The guilty should not be allowed to ever hold office.
Americans are demanding more of their government and elected officials. They have every right to do so. Honesty, integrity and morality are not suggestions for the governing elite. Those characteristics are what should be required to occupy any office of public trust.
Monday, September 28, 2015
The Truth About the Refugee Crisis
The images seeping out of Europe have painted a shocking picture of the growing refugee crisis. Photographs of a dead Syrian toddler have touched millions. Pictures of swarms of desperate people crowding train stations and emaciated children sleeping on sidewalks have shaken the world.
Amid these heart-breaking news portraits, little has been written to document the scale of the torrent of humanity invading Europe. Facts, often elusive in the throes of a crisis, are beginning to come to light and the numbers paint a far different picture than the provocative television and media reports.
Most of the wave of people flooding Europe are not from Syria and the majority are not refugees. According to the latest European Union statistics, of the 213,000 people who fled to Europe from April through June only 44,000 (or one of every five) are from Syria.
The United Nations estimates that four million Syrians have departed their country and are now abroad. Many have landed in neighboring countries, such as Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Migrants from other countries have taken advantage of the situation to join the wave invading Europe.
Immigrants from Afghanistan, Albania, Eritrea, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Kosovo are escaping their countries in unison with the refugees. Numbers are hard to come by, but Frontex estimates more than half a million immigrants have arrived in Europe, tagging along with the refugees.
Frontex is the European Union agency that deals with immigration issues, including human trafficking and illegal migrants.
The total number of requests for asylum in the 28-member European Union currently stands at 592,000. And the applications are mushrooming each day. Add to that more than 500,000 migrants illegally crossing European borders and you have an crisis of epic proportions.
This tide of humanity has swamped the resources of European countries. Bankrupt Greece has watched as 181,488 refugees have rushed into the country. Some nations, such as Austria, have erected border controls to stem the onrush before their nation collapses in chaos.
Meanwhile, in the United States, the Obama Administration keeps upping the ante on how many refugees the country will accept. On September 11, The White House promised to welcome 10,000 Syrian refugees. Ten days later, Secretary of State John Kerry raised the number to 185,000.
Under Kerry's plan, the country would take in 85,000 Syrian refugees next year and 100,000 in 2017 after President Obama leaves office. Some in the world community, including Pope Francis, have urged the United States to fling open its borders and grant asylum to thousands more.
The jaundiced propaganda is aimed at casting America as a closed society with no compassion for displaced refugees. Like so many prejudiced judgments, it is unequivocally false.
Statistics issued by The World Bank show there were 263,662 refugees residing in the U.S. in 2013, the latest year for which figures are available. That number far exceeds refugees in developed countries, including the United Kingdom, Mexico, Japan, India and Russia.
In 2013, American rolled out the red carpet for 69,909 refugees. Of that number, 25,199 were granted asylum, Homeland Security figures show. Refugee admissions to the U.S. have been growing steadily since 2002, debunking the notion America has not done enough.
About 27 percent of the refugees who received U.S. asylum migrated from Iraq. Other countries sending refugees in large numbers included Bhutan and Burma. Asylum requests from Syrians last year accounted for less than one percent of the total.
The largest flow ever recorded of refugees to America followed the passage of the landmark Displaced Persons Act of 1948. After Congress approved the measure, the U.S. opened its doors to 400,000 Eastern European refugees. No country has even come close to that kind of refugee intake.
For centuries, America has been a sanctuary for refugees. It is part of the country's DNA to receive with open arms those fleeing from oppression. To suggest otherwise, is to ignore history and to deny the American experience.
Amid these heart-breaking news portraits, little has been written to document the scale of the torrent of humanity invading Europe. Facts, often elusive in the throes of a crisis, are beginning to come to light and the numbers paint a far different picture than the provocative television and media reports.
Most of the wave of people flooding Europe are not from Syria and the majority are not refugees. According to the latest European Union statistics, of the 213,000 people who fled to Europe from April through June only 44,000 (or one of every five) are from Syria.
The United Nations estimates that four million Syrians have departed their country and are now abroad. Many have landed in neighboring countries, such as Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Migrants from other countries have taken advantage of the situation to join the wave invading Europe.
Immigrants from Afghanistan, Albania, Eritrea, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Kosovo are escaping their countries in unison with the refugees. Numbers are hard to come by, but Frontex estimates more than half a million immigrants have arrived in Europe, tagging along with the refugees.
Frontex is the European Union agency that deals with immigration issues, including human trafficking and illegal migrants.
The total number of requests for asylum in the 28-member European Union currently stands at 592,000. And the applications are mushrooming each day. Add to that more than 500,000 migrants illegally crossing European borders and you have an crisis of epic proportions.
This tide of humanity has swamped the resources of European countries. Bankrupt Greece has watched as 181,488 refugees have rushed into the country. Some nations, such as Austria, have erected border controls to stem the onrush before their nation collapses in chaos.
Meanwhile, in the United States, the Obama Administration keeps upping the ante on how many refugees the country will accept. On September 11, The White House promised to welcome 10,000 Syrian refugees. Ten days later, Secretary of State John Kerry raised the number to 185,000.
Under Kerry's plan, the country would take in 85,000 Syrian refugees next year and 100,000 in 2017 after President Obama leaves office. Some in the world community, including Pope Francis, have urged the United States to fling open its borders and grant asylum to thousands more.
The jaundiced propaganda is aimed at casting America as a closed society with no compassion for displaced refugees. Like so many prejudiced judgments, it is unequivocally false.
Statistics issued by The World Bank show there were 263,662 refugees residing in the U.S. in 2013, the latest year for which figures are available. That number far exceeds refugees in developed countries, including the United Kingdom, Mexico, Japan, India and Russia.
In 2013, American rolled out the red carpet for 69,909 refugees. Of that number, 25,199 were granted asylum, Homeland Security figures show. Refugee admissions to the U.S. have been growing steadily since 2002, debunking the notion America has not done enough.
About 27 percent of the refugees who received U.S. asylum migrated from Iraq. Other countries sending refugees in large numbers included Bhutan and Burma. Asylum requests from Syrians last year accounted for less than one percent of the total.
The largest flow ever recorded of refugees to America followed the passage of the landmark Displaced Persons Act of 1948. After Congress approved the measure, the U.S. opened its doors to 400,000 Eastern European refugees. No country has even come close to that kind of refugee intake.
For centuries, America has been a sanctuary for refugees. It is part of the country's DNA to receive with open arms those fleeing from oppression. To suggest otherwise, is to ignore history and to deny the American experience.
Monday, September 21, 2015
It's the Economy, Stupid
American voters historically care most about pocketbook issues. Foreign policy, immigration, nuclear treaties, the federal budget and even government debt, while important, are tucked away in the backseat. That political lesson seems to be wasted on presidential candidates this season.
Yet polls show that Americans overwhelmingly believe Mr. Obama's policies have failed to revive the country's economy. In the latest Gallup survey, exactly one-half of Americans think the economy is getting worse. Despite the evidence, no candidate has tackled voters' concern about the economy.
America's economy, as measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), has limped along since the 2008 recession. The GDP is one of the primary indicators used to measure the health of world economies. It represents the total dollar value of all goods and services the country produces.
The world's largest economy has not reached three percent annual GDP growth during Obama's tenure. Since 1948, U.S. economic growth has averaged 3.23 percent annually. A three percent growth rate is one sign of a flourishing economy.
The world's largest economy has not reached three percent annual GDP growth during Obama's tenure. Since 1948, U.S. economic growth has averaged 3.23 percent annually. A three percent growth rate is one sign of a flourishing economy.
In six recoveries from past recessions the American economy averaged 3.97 percent growth after 23 quarters. The average annual growth rate for the Obama economy is 2.24 percent, stamping it as the weakest recovery in U.S. history. That fact has been buried by the mainstream media.
The highest annual GDP growth achieved under Obama was 2.5 percent in 2010, according to figures published by The World Bank. Last year's growth was 2.4 percent. This tortoise-like expansion has been recorded despite the federal government borrowing more than $7 trillion in the last six years.
How bad is America's economic track record? Here is a partial list of nations that beat U.S. GDP growth last year: Algeria, Kenya, Bangladesh, Guyana, Burundi, Honduras, Mongolia, Mali, Nepal and Bahrain. Not exactly a who's who of world economic heavyweights.
While the U.S. economy resembles a 100-pound weakling, China's growth has out muscled the rest of the world. It has been increasing GDP by 7 percent or more since 2010. For all the talk about a slowdown in China's economy, it still expanded 7.4 percent last year.
America's economic malaise has hit wage earners where it hurts most. Inflation-adjusted wage growth has been almost flat, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Average hourly earnings for private sector jobs have risen $3.52 since 2008. That's about 50-cents per hour annually.
The percentage of Americans in the labor force is at a 38-year low of 62.6 percent. It was 65.7 percent when President Obama arrived in the Oval Office. Americans are fleeing the work force at an alarming pace, partly because of the retirements of the Baby Boomer generation.
Another factor behind the decline is the rip tide of Americans signing up for Social Security disability insurance. The number of disability applications more than doubled between 2000 and 2010. As a result, there are nearly 9 million Americans now receiving disability benefits from the government.
Not helping matters, the number of part-time workers has soared to 18.1 percent of the labor force. Many of them want full-time jobs but cannot find one. In a recent paper, the Federal Reserve of Chicago found a strong link between slow wage growth and the uptick in part-time workers.
From his perch in the White House, President Obama spins all this ugly economic news as Republican chatter. He brags that he personally saved America from a second Great Depression. Unemployment has nosedived below 6 percent, he crows to reinforce his egotistical boast.
However, low unemployment usually means higher wages because of the demand for new workers. Hasn't happened. It nearly always results in more economic activity as consumers increase spending. Hasn't happened. Full-time payrolls should be swelling. Hasn't happened.
Mr. Obama's legacy will be a flaccid economy that never achieved lift-off despite massive spending and record debt. The next president must be prepared to jump start the American growth engine. It would be encouraging for voters to hear candidates airing ideas on their plans for economic revival.
Another factor behind the decline is the rip tide of Americans signing up for Social Security disability insurance. The number of disability applications more than doubled between 2000 and 2010. As a result, there are nearly 9 million Americans now receiving disability benefits from the government.
Not helping matters, the number of part-time workers has soared to 18.1 percent of the labor force. Many of them want full-time jobs but cannot find one. In a recent paper, the Federal Reserve of Chicago found a strong link between slow wage growth and the uptick in part-time workers.
From his perch in the White House, President Obama spins all this ugly economic news as Republican chatter. He brags that he personally saved America from a second Great Depression. Unemployment has nosedived below 6 percent, he crows to reinforce his egotistical boast.
However, low unemployment usually means higher wages because of the demand for new workers. Hasn't happened. It nearly always results in more economic activity as consumers increase spending. Hasn't happened. Full-time payrolls should be swelling. Hasn't happened.
Mr. Obama's legacy will be a flaccid economy that never achieved lift-off despite massive spending and record debt. The next president must be prepared to jump start the American growth engine. It would be encouraging for voters to hear candidates airing ideas on their plans for economic revival.
Monday, September 14, 2015
How Educators Are Failing America
An estimated 2.8 million newly-minted college graduates have a framed certificate but little else. Universities are churning out students who are woefully unprepared for today's job market. The situation has created a crisis that threatens to undermine the nation's economic growth.
A number of surveys, including a recent one by the Gallup polling organization, underscore the disconnect between the skills required by today's businesses and the academic preparation offered by most of the nation's 4,700 community colleges and four-year universities
In the Gallup study, only 11 percent of business leaders strongly agreed that graduates had the necessary skills and competencies to succeed in the workplace. Employers are not interested in theoretical learning. They want proof of a graduate's ability to execute required skills.
In today's workplace, computers and robots have replaced the mundane tasks once performed by low and mid-level employees. Jobs today require critical thinking, problem-solving, the ability to work in teams, and technological competency. These skills are seriously lacking in many graduates.
This is not a new phenomenon. For decades, businesses have been trying to convince academia to change course. But colleges may be the most stubborn, hide-bound of all institutions. Rapid change undermines their propensity for incremental advances.
For example, a survey conducted by Inside Higher Ed with Gallup showed 96 percent of academic officers thought their schools were doing a good job of preparing students for the future. These leaders obviously are not spending much time asking business people about their job requirements.
Frankly, they don't care. Their mushy academic goal is molding young minds. Businesses and the economy have very specific requirements. Virtually every job at American business firms, large and small, is changing at the fastest rate ever. Colleges are not keeping up with the pace of innovation.
Technology is creating new jobs, but destroying old ones along the way. Jobs for administrative assistants and secretaries are nearly extinct. Data entry clerks are dinosaurs. IT positions, once the golden goose, are being automated and outsourced. Even agricultural work is computer-driven.
As the economy undergoes titanic shifts, companies require workers who are life-long learners equipped to deal with ambiguity and nonstop change. Unfortunately, one of the downsides created by this economic metamorphosis is a shrinkage in businesses' investment in human capital.
Consider in 1979 General Motors, then the world's largest car company, had a payroll of 853,000 people. Today four of the world's high-tech behemoths, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Goggle, employ fewer than 150,000 workers combined. And these firms are all recruiting talent outside the U.S.
Colleges are cheating today's generation by not recognizing the need for more grads with mathematics, statistics, engineering and computer science training. They are not producing graduates
armed with interpersonal characteristics, problem-solving skills or oral communications talent.
Instead, universities are rushing to add courses in Gender Inquiry, Diversity Training and African-American Studies. Meanwhile, students are paying more and getting less relevant educations. Students and graduates have racked up $1.2 trillion in debt underwritten by American taxpayers.
Debt-ridden graduates face an appalling future. Recent data published by Forbes shows that 44 percent of colleges grads in their 20's are stuck in low-wage, dead-end jobs. The number of young people earning less than $25,000 a year has risen to the highest level since the 1990's.
America needs a world class workforce to remain the global economic leader. College and university presidents need to climb off their academic high horses and begin preparing the next generation of workers with marketable skills instead of dishing out theoretical nonsense.
Without discernible change in academia, American businesses will lose their premier position in the competitive world because of the lack of skilled workers. If that happens, this nation's colleges and universities will deserve more than a failing grade. They will cease to be relevant institutions.
A number of surveys, including a recent one by the Gallup polling organization, underscore the disconnect between the skills required by today's businesses and the academic preparation offered by most of the nation's 4,700 community colleges and four-year universities
In the Gallup study, only 11 percent of business leaders strongly agreed that graduates had the necessary skills and competencies to succeed in the workplace. Employers are not interested in theoretical learning. They want proof of a graduate's ability to execute required skills.
In today's workplace, computers and robots have replaced the mundane tasks once performed by low and mid-level employees. Jobs today require critical thinking, problem-solving, the ability to work in teams, and technological competency. These skills are seriously lacking in many graduates.
This is not a new phenomenon. For decades, businesses have been trying to convince academia to change course. But colleges may be the most stubborn, hide-bound of all institutions. Rapid change undermines their propensity for incremental advances.
For example, a survey conducted by Inside Higher Ed with Gallup showed 96 percent of academic officers thought their schools were doing a good job of preparing students for the future. These leaders obviously are not spending much time asking business people about their job requirements.
Frankly, they don't care. Their mushy academic goal is molding young minds. Businesses and the economy have very specific requirements. Virtually every job at American business firms, large and small, is changing at the fastest rate ever. Colleges are not keeping up with the pace of innovation.
Technology is creating new jobs, but destroying old ones along the way. Jobs for administrative assistants and secretaries are nearly extinct. Data entry clerks are dinosaurs. IT positions, once the golden goose, are being automated and outsourced. Even agricultural work is computer-driven.
As the economy undergoes titanic shifts, companies require workers who are life-long learners equipped to deal with ambiguity and nonstop change. Unfortunately, one of the downsides created by this economic metamorphosis is a shrinkage in businesses' investment in human capital.
Consider in 1979 General Motors, then the world's largest car company, had a payroll of 853,000 people. Today four of the world's high-tech behemoths, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Goggle, employ fewer than 150,000 workers combined. And these firms are all recruiting talent outside the U.S.
Colleges are cheating today's generation by not recognizing the need for more grads with mathematics, statistics, engineering and computer science training. They are not producing graduates
armed with interpersonal characteristics, problem-solving skills or oral communications talent.
Instead, universities are rushing to add courses in Gender Inquiry, Diversity Training and African-American Studies. Meanwhile, students are paying more and getting less relevant educations. Students and graduates have racked up $1.2 trillion in debt underwritten by American taxpayers.
Debt-ridden graduates face an appalling future. Recent data published by Forbes shows that 44 percent of colleges grads in their 20's are stuck in low-wage, dead-end jobs. The number of young people earning less than $25,000 a year has risen to the highest level since the 1990's.
America needs a world class workforce to remain the global economic leader. College and university presidents need to climb off their academic high horses and begin preparing the next generation of workers with marketable skills instead of dishing out theoretical nonsense.
Without discernible change in academia, American businesses will lose their premier position in the competitive world because of the lack of skilled workers. If that happens, this nation's colleges and universities will deserve more than a failing grade. They will cease to be relevant institutions.
Monday, September 7, 2015
Can America Regain Its Superpower Mojo?
Of all the mistakes made by President Obama, none are more glaring than his deliberate, calculated effort to weaken the United States' position as the world's superpower. From his early days in office, the president has ridiculed American exceptionalism and surrendered the nation's global leadership.
The president's supporters who adhere to his isolationist agenda argue that Mr. Obama has restored international goodwill toward America. They claim without any proof that our allies and our enemies both like the United States better because the president has shown deference to other nations.
What should be clear to any student of foreign policy is that international peace and tranquility do not depend on chumminess. Power, stability, credibility and shared interests are the glue that keeps world order. But ultimately one country must accept the mantle of leadership on these principles.
That role naturally has fallen to the United States. President Roosevelt once penned these words, "Great power involves great responsibility." As the world's economic and military titan, America cannot shrink from the world stage. If it withdraws, the power vacuum will be filled by others.
Look what has happened since Mr. Obama's global disengagement. The Middle East is a powder keg with Iran holding the fuse. The sleeping bear Russia has reawakened with intentions of rebuilding its former Soviet empire. China is assembling a potent military, threatening stability in Asia.
Under Mr. Obama, America has become nothing more than a paper tiger. The president drew a red-line in Syria and then obliterated it. He demanded Russia stop its aggression in the Ukraine, but he backed up the threat with hollow sanctions that have failed to deter President Putin.
His nuclear deal with Iran does nothing to address the mullahs' sponsorship of terror throughout the region. Mr. Obama's actions have shown the world that America is reluctant to behave like a superpower. This sign of weaknesses has led to more instability instead of promoting peace.
In Mr. Obama's mind, the absence of American involvement in foreign conflicts, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, are signs of his foreign policy success. No serious policy expert is suggesting America needs to be on war footing to fulfill its superpower role. But America cannot lead by vacillating.
The challenge facing the next president will be how to regain America's rightful position as the world's global force for good. A powerful U.S., both economically and militarily, must accept the responsibility of providing that leadership. Isolation from the world is a prescription for chaos.
Historians partly blame American isolation for World War I and World War II when the United States was reluctant to intervene before the conflicts engulfed much of the world. If America once again chooses to watch world events from the sidelines, the results will be catastrophic.
For the most part, the world's leaders expect America to be the superpower. Over the decades, the United States has both been chastised and applauded for its intervention in global affairs. But when crises arise, often contentious issues cannot be solved without the involvement of America.
That's why the U.S. cannot afford to withdraw from the world. If it does, the country will lose any ability to shape global events, including trade. A toothless America is a scary thought because it raises the chilling prospect of a world dictated by Russia, China or Iran.
The next president can regain a measure of respect by clearly articulating America's foreign policy goals and backing it up with unwavering courage. Mr. Obama's incoherent policy, characterized by his "pivot" to Asia, has produced backpedalling on issues causing leaders to question U.S. resolve.
America's new leader must redefine the nation's strategic interests in the world. Public opinion on the home front has dissuaded politicians from committing American military forces abroad. While America cannot solve all the world's problems, the nation must honor its security agreements.
America's worldwide military presence is a deterrence to war, not an invitation to escalate hostilities. That's why the next president must revive the nation's military after nearly seven years of cuts in manpower and weapons. The military ranks have been thinned to their lowest level in six decades.
America has the strength to recapture is superpower status. It won't be easy because so much ground has been squandered by Mr. Obama. America's economic and military strength can still be parlayed into a seat at the head of the world's nations, if the next president moves expeditiously.
Reclaiming superpower status is critical to the country's ability to influence events, to protect its interests and to promote peaceful resolution of global conflicts.
The president's supporters who adhere to his isolationist agenda argue that Mr. Obama has restored international goodwill toward America. They claim without any proof that our allies and our enemies both like the United States better because the president has shown deference to other nations.
What should be clear to any student of foreign policy is that international peace and tranquility do not depend on chumminess. Power, stability, credibility and shared interests are the glue that keeps world order. But ultimately one country must accept the mantle of leadership on these principles.
That role naturally has fallen to the United States. President Roosevelt once penned these words, "Great power involves great responsibility." As the world's economic and military titan, America cannot shrink from the world stage. If it withdraws, the power vacuum will be filled by others.
Look what has happened since Mr. Obama's global disengagement. The Middle East is a powder keg with Iran holding the fuse. The sleeping bear Russia has reawakened with intentions of rebuilding its former Soviet empire. China is assembling a potent military, threatening stability in Asia.
Under Mr. Obama, America has become nothing more than a paper tiger. The president drew a red-line in Syria and then obliterated it. He demanded Russia stop its aggression in the Ukraine, but he backed up the threat with hollow sanctions that have failed to deter President Putin.
His nuclear deal with Iran does nothing to address the mullahs' sponsorship of terror throughout the region. Mr. Obama's actions have shown the world that America is reluctant to behave like a superpower. This sign of weaknesses has led to more instability instead of promoting peace.
In Mr. Obama's mind, the absence of American involvement in foreign conflicts, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, are signs of his foreign policy success. No serious policy expert is suggesting America needs to be on war footing to fulfill its superpower role. But America cannot lead by vacillating.
The challenge facing the next president will be how to regain America's rightful position as the world's global force for good. A powerful U.S., both economically and militarily, must accept the responsibility of providing that leadership. Isolation from the world is a prescription for chaos.
Historians partly blame American isolation for World War I and World War II when the United States was reluctant to intervene before the conflicts engulfed much of the world. If America once again chooses to watch world events from the sidelines, the results will be catastrophic.
For the most part, the world's leaders expect America to be the superpower. Over the decades, the United States has both been chastised and applauded for its intervention in global affairs. But when crises arise, often contentious issues cannot be solved without the involvement of America.
That's why the U.S. cannot afford to withdraw from the world. If it does, the country will lose any ability to shape global events, including trade. A toothless America is a scary thought because it raises the chilling prospect of a world dictated by Russia, China or Iran.
The next president can regain a measure of respect by clearly articulating America's foreign policy goals and backing it up with unwavering courage. Mr. Obama's incoherent policy, characterized by his "pivot" to Asia, has produced backpedalling on issues causing leaders to question U.S. resolve.
America's new leader must redefine the nation's strategic interests in the world. Public opinion on the home front has dissuaded politicians from committing American military forces abroad. While America cannot solve all the world's problems, the nation must honor its security agreements.
America's worldwide military presence is a deterrence to war, not an invitation to escalate hostilities. That's why the next president must revive the nation's military after nearly seven years of cuts in manpower and weapons. The military ranks have been thinned to their lowest level in six decades.
America has the strength to recapture is superpower status. It won't be easy because so much ground has been squandered by Mr. Obama. America's economic and military strength can still be parlayed into a seat at the head of the world's nations, if the next president moves expeditiously.
Reclaiming superpower status is critical to the country's ability to influence events, to protect its interests and to promote peaceful resolution of global conflicts.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Exclusive: Hillary's Secret Emails Surface
After an exhaustive search of bathrooms from New York to Colorado, a private server containing a cache of Hillary Clinton's top secret emails has been been discovered in a Nevada outhouse. The revelation ends months of speculation about the whereabouts of thousands of missing emails.
The FBI, government committees and a federal judge have been investigating the former Secretary of State's handling of classified documents. Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in the matter, while stonewalling, prevaricating and obfuscating.
In an effort to disclose the truth about the content of the emails, here is a sample of the communications contained on the outhouse server, which was formerly used by Democrat Harry Reid to hide his land deals.
TOP SECRET (chelsaclinton@importantdaughter.net)
Give my favorite grand baby a hug. I never can remember its name. By the way, is it a boy or a girl.
Hill
CLASSIFIED (HumaAbedin@embarassed.net)
Hey, your husband Anthony texted me a picture of his Weiner. What's that about? I thought I was the only one dealing with a spouse who couldn't keep his pants on.
Hill
EYES ONLY (AlgerianprimeMinister@moneybags.net)
It was nice shaking your hand today at the two-minute reception in my office. Remember to write a generous check for $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Bill always speaks fondly of you Algerians.
Hill
SUPER SECRET (GeorgeSoros@scumbag.net)
While I was in Iraq, I stumbled upon some insider information on the country's currency. You may want to place a bet on the Iraqi rial at the opening of the markets. Just saying. Kindly write two checks to the Clinton Foundation and one to my future presidential library.
Hill
UNBELIEVABLY SECRET (headOfclintonFoundation@moneylaundering.net)
I am submitting a reimbursement invoice for 32 bottles of champagne, two nights in a Paris hotel, a private jet and yoga pants. These items and services were purchased in connection with my work with the Clinton Foundation while I was hosting a dinner for fat-cat campaign donors.
Hill
TOO SECRET TO MENTION (OmarTheTentmaker@shadybusiness.net)
The latest batch of pants suits you sent me were a little tight around my ample hips. I thought I made it perfectly clear that I had quit Jenny Craig. I hear there is a used circus tent for sale in Indiana. You might check out the fabric.
Hill
WAY, WAY SECRET (CherylMills@coverupartist.net)
Those nasty Republicans on the Benghazi committee are snooping around again. They want to know if I personally rejected requests for embassy security. Change the signatures on all my State Department documents to John Kerry. Anyone dumb enough to negotiate that nuclear deal with Iran won't have a clue.
Hill
BEYOND SECRET (ValdPutin@russianbear.net)
I saw a picture of you in today's New York Times riding a horse without your shirt. Wow! I mean there was a tingle down my leg. Unlike you, our president has a body like a toothpick. I'm flying to Moscow this evening to reset your buttons!
Hill
NO ONE CAN SEE THIS SECRET (Bubba@AshleyMadison.net)
I did not appreciate you sharing the fact that you never used email after I told journalists that I deleted private communications between us. Lie for me like I did for you all those years. By the way, man up and gain some weight. You look like a scarecrow standing next to me.
Hill
YOU WILL HAVE TO BE KILLED IF YOU READ THIS (JoeBiden@hairplugs.net)
Really? You would oppose me for president? This must be some cruel joke. Unless you grow breasts, you don't have a chance. I am going to be the first woman to occupy the Oval Office...well, unless you count that tramp Monica.
Hill
These explosive emails are only a harbinger of things to come. At some point in the next 12 months, a foreign government, professional hacker or political operative is bound to release the real emails Mrs. Clinton hid, destroyed or withheld.
Those emails may be the final blow that ends her second bid for the White House. Or she could be the first president in United States history to endure a perp-walk during her inauguration speech.
The FBI, government committees and a federal judge have been investigating the former Secretary of State's handling of classified documents. Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in the matter, while stonewalling, prevaricating and obfuscating.
In an effort to disclose the truth about the content of the emails, here is a sample of the communications contained on the outhouse server, which was formerly used by Democrat Harry Reid to hide his land deals.
TOP SECRET (chelsaclinton@importantdaughter.net)
Give my favorite grand baby a hug. I never can remember its name. By the way, is it a boy or a girl.
Hill
CLASSIFIED (HumaAbedin@embarassed.net)
Hey, your husband Anthony texted me a picture of his Weiner. What's that about? I thought I was the only one dealing with a spouse who couldn't keep his pants on.
Hill
EYES ONLY (AlgerianprimeMinister@moneybags.net)
It was nice shaking your hand today at the two-minute reception in my office. Remember to write a generous check for $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Bill always speaks fondly of you Algerians.
Hill
SUPER SECRET (GeorgeSoros@scumbag.net)
While I was in Iraq, I stumbled upon some insider information on the country's currency. You may want to place a bet on the Iraqi rial at the opening of the markets. Just saying. Kindly write two checks to the Clinton Foundation and one to my future presidential library.
Hill
UNBELIEVABLY SECRET (headOfclintonFoundation@moneylaundering.net)
I am submitting a reimbursement invoice for 32 bottles of champagne, two nights in a Paris hotel, a private jet and yoga pants. These items and services were purchased in connection with my work with the Clinton Foundation while I was hosting a dinner for fat-cat campaign donors.
Hill
TOO SECRET TO MENTION (OmarTheTentmaker@shadybusiness.net)
The latest batch of pants suits you sent me were a little tight around my ample hips. I thought I made it perfectly clear that I had quit Jenny Craig. I hear there is a used circus tent for sale in Indiana. You might check out the fabric.
Hill
WAY, WAY SECRET (CherylMills@coverupartist.net)
Those nasty Republicans on the Benghazi committee are snooping around again. They want to know if I personally rejected requests for embassy security. Change the signatures on all my State Department documents to John Kerry. Anyone dumb enough to negotiate that nuclear deal with Iran won't have a clue.
Hill
BEYOND SECRET (ValdPutin@russianbear.net)
I saw a picture of you in today's New York Times riding a horse without your shirt. Wow! I mean there was a tingle down my leg. Unlike you, our president has a body like a toothpick. I'm flying to Moscow this evening to reset your buttons!
Hill
NO ONE CAN SEE THIS SECRET (Bubba@AshleyMadison.net)
I did not appreciate you sharing the fact that you never used email after I told journalists that I deleted private communications between us. Lie for me like I did for you all those years. By the way, man up and gain some weight. You look like a scarecrow standing next to me.
Hill
YOU WILL HAVE TO BE KILLED IF YOU READ THIS (JoeBiden@hairplugs.net)
Really? You would oppose me for president? This must be some cruel joke. Unless you grow breasts, you don't have a chance. I am going to be the first woman to occupy the Oval Office...well, unless you count that tramp Monica.
Hill
These explosive emails are only a harbinger of things to come. At some point in the next 12 months, a foreign government, professional hacker or political operative is bound to release the real emails Mrs. Clinton hid, destroyed or withheld.
Those emails may be the final blow that ends her second bid for the White House. Or she could be the first president in United States history to endure a perp-walk during her inauguration speech.
Monday, August 24, 2015
Explaining the Trump Phenomenon
Billionaire. Braggart. Blowhard. Birdbrain. Those are just a few of the sobriquets the unscrupulous media have showered on presidential candidate Donald Trump. The media cabal is flabbergasted by his poll numbers and outraged by his naked contempt for journalists.
In an callow attempt to explain his meteoric rise, journalistic imbeciles have resorted to amateur psychology. Their theory is that The Donald speaks for the great unwashed, those slow-wits who are drawn to celebrities like moths to a flame. Their fascination will wane and Trump's star will fade.
These self-anointed pundits are dead wrong on both counts. Trump's seductiveness can be explained in the context of the Republican Party's fall from grace with its conservative base. Despite media and Republican insider efforts to destroy him, Trump will outlast most in the crowded field.
He may not capture the GOP nomination, but the fiery Trump has exposed the chasm of dissatisfaction that is tearing at party unity. The disaffected are fed up with the inside the Beltway political clique. They no longer trust their own party to do the right thing. They hunger for change.
Ironically, the man running against the party's Old Guard is a product of their pathetic failure to deliver on their promises. Republicans vowed, "Just give us the House and we will stop Obama." Voters responded by handing the GOP a decided edge in the House of Representatives.
The flaccid House leadership produced only symbolic votes. Then Republicans whined, "Just give us the Senate and we will stop Obama." In the last election, the GOP assumed the majority in the Senate. Despite the upper hand in Congress, Republican leadership has squandered its plurality.
Republican voters have watched as the weak-kneed political aristocracy has botched every opportunity to brake the Obama agenda. The president has run roughshod over bumbling Republican leaders, while mocking their ineptness. No wonder most voters have lost faith in the party.
Trump, despite the media's smear tactics, has emerged as the candidate who best articulates the antipathy GOP voters feel toward party nobility. He unabashedly derides Washington's political elite, sneering at their incompetence. He eschews political correctness to the chagrin of party pols.
His message has helped other Washington outsiders like fellow candidate Ben Carson benefit from voter frustration. Trump is giving a voice to the bubbling rebellion within the party against the ruling class symbolized best by Congressional leaders John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
Trump has also tapped into a smoldering issue with the Republican base. Many GOP voters have thrown up their hands in exasperation over their party's impotency in dealing with illegal immigration. Most Republicans want their leaders to adopt a hard line on the issue.
A Pew Research poll conducted in June found nearly 60% of Republicans say their party no longer reflects their views on immigration. A majority (58%) view a path to legal status for illegal immigrants as a reward for breaking the law. By comparison, only 23 percent of Democrats agree.
There is deep-seated unrest among conservatives with what they see as the party's breech of contract with its base in an effort to pander to the Hispanic vote. Capitalizing on that disgruntlement, Trump has made illegal immigration reform the centerpiece of his presidential campaign.
Whatever you think of Donald Trump, he has correctly read the GOP political tea leaves. Republicans covet a candidate who will be hard-nosed on illegal immigration. They pine for someone who will fearlessly challenge the good old boy Washington lobbyist cartel.
Those in the media and his detractors would be wise not to underestimate Donald Trump. He has struck a nerve with many disgruntled voters, who are weary of hearing the latest feeble excuse from the GOP-controlled Congress on why it cannot change things in Washington.
Those in the Republican hierarchy who openly loathe Trump have no one to blame but themselves for his surge to the top spot among party presidential candidates. Trump has found traction with voters because the GOP establishment has turned its back on its conservative base.
In an callow attempt to explain his meteoric rise, journalistic imbeciles have resorted to amateur psychology. Their theory is that The Donald speaks for the great unwashed, those slow-wits who are drawn to celebrities like moths to a flame. Their fascination will wane and Trump's star will fade.
These self-anointed pundits are dead wrong on both counts. Trump's seductiveness can be explained in the context of the Republican Party's fall from grace with its conservative base. Despite media and Republican insider efforts to destroy him, Trump will outlast most in the crowded field.
He may not capture the GOP nomination, but the fiery Trump has exposed the chasm of dissatisfaction that is tearing at party unity. The disaffected are fed up with the inside the Beltway political clique. They no longer trust their own party to do the right thing. They hunger for change.
Ironically, the man running against the party's Old Guard is a product of their pathetic failure to deliver on their promises. Republicans vowed, "Just give us the House and we will stop Obama." Voters responded by handing the GOP a decided edge in the House of Representatives.
The flaccid House leadership produced only symbolic votes. Then Republicans whined, "Just give us the Senate and we will stop Obama." In the last election, the GOP assumed the majority in the Senate. Despite the upper hand in Congress, Republican leadership has squandered its plurality.
Republican voters have watched as the weak-kneed political aristocracy has botched every opportunity to brake the Obama agenda. The president has run roughshod over bumbling Republican leaders, while mocking their ineptness. No wonder most voters have lost faith in the party.
Trump, despite the media's smear tactics, has emerged as the candidate who best articulates the antipathy GOP voters feel toward party nobility. He unabashedly derides Washington's political elite, sneering at their incompetence. He eschews political correctness to the chagrin of party pols.
His message has helped other Washington outsiders like fellow candidate Ben Carson benefit from voter frustration. Trump is giving a voice to the bubbling rebellion within the party against the ruling class symbolized best by Congressional leaders John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
Trump has also tapped into a smoldering issue with the Republican base. Many GOP voters have thrown up their hands in exasperation over their party's impotency in dealing with illegal immigration. Most Republicans want their leaders to adopt a hard line on the issue.
A Pew Research poll conducted in June found nearly 60% of Republicans say their party no longer reflects their views on immigration. A majority (58%) view a path to legal status for illegal immigrants as a reward for breaking the law. By comparison, only 23 percent of Democrats agree.
There is deep-seated unrest among conservatives with what they see as the party's breech of contract with its base in an effort to pander to the Hispanic vote. Capitalizing on that disgruntlement, Trump has made illegal immigration reform the centerpiece of his presidential campaign.
Whatever you think of Donald Trump, he has correctly read the GOP political tea leaves. Republicans covet a candidate who will be hard-nosed on illegal immigration. They pine for someone who will fearlessly challenge the good old boy Washington lobbyist cartel.
Those in the media and his detractors would be wise not to underestimate Donald Trump. He has struck a nerve with many disgruntled voters, who are weary of hearing the latest feeble excuse from the GOP-controlled Congress on why it cannot change things in Washington.
Those in the Republican hierarchy who openly loathe Trump have no one to blame but themselves for his surge to the top spot among party presidential candidates. Trump has found traction with voters because the GOP establishment has turned its back on its conservative base.
Monday, August 17, 2015
The Issue No Candidate Wants To Discuss
There is one topic every presidential candidate has paid lip service to but offered little else. The incendiary issue threatens the nation's financial security. A former Federal Reserve chairman calls it an "extremely dangerous" risk that could undermine the U.S. economy.
The concern is the unparalleled rise in entitlement costs. Federal budget expenditures for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and food assistance programs were 19.2 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) last year. In 2005, entitlements accounted for 15.5 percent
Spending on entitlements in the 2015 budget is projected at $2.45 trillion. That is 65 percent of the federal budget. Entitlements are categorized as mandatory spending, since the government is obligated to fund the programs. So-called discretionary spending comprises 29 percent of the budget.
Spending levels for mandatory programs are determined by eligibility rules. Once Congress sets those guidelines, the amount of money allocated from the federal budget is driven by estimates on how many people are expected to enroll in the programs. No cuts or increases are allowed.
Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan bluntly assessed the issue in a recent interview. "To me the discussion today shouldn't even be on monetary policy, it should be on how we constrain this extraordinary rise in entitlements." Greenspan headed the Fed from 1987 to 2006.
In 2014, the government had to borrow $39 billion just to cover the deficit in the Social Security program, the most costly federal entitlement. And the yawning gap between Social Security taxes and benefit payments is estimated to widen in coming years as more people reach retirement age.
The federal government lumps Social Security with Disability Insurance in the budget. The two entitlement programs combined are projected to reach $1.1 trillion in unfunded liabilities in the next ten years. By 2033, 18 years from now, government trustees estimate the programs will be insolvent.
For clarification purposes, an unfunded liability can be a confusing accounting term. It simply means that the programs will owe more money to current and estimated future beneficiaries than it has funds to pay for those benefits.
Absent some reforms in eligibility requirements, the federal government will be faced with Draconian choices. It can slice benefits to those receiving Social Security and Disability Insurance by 23 percent across the board or raise taxes by that amount. Neither choice has political appeal.
Soaring entitlement costs have increased pressure on the government to keep raising the nation's debt ceiling. At the end of July, the federal debt had climbed to a staggering $18.649 trillion. The interest on that debt, $229 billion this year, chews up 6 percent of all federal spending.
In 2015, the government expects to use its credit card to rack up another $583 billion in debt. The borrowed money pays for 16 percent of the government's budget expenditures. Despite all the claims to the contrary, Washington continues to spend money it does not have.
This year's $3.8 trillion federal budget is the largest in American history. And no one believes it will ever be lower or remain at the current level. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the country will return to trillion dollar annual deficits by 2025.
The reason for the projection is the aging of the population. As the Baby Boom generation retires, more people will be tapping into Social Security and other entitlements. Despite the inevitability, no one currently inside the Beltway or presidential candidate seems willing to offer solutions.
One reason for the do-nothing sentiment is the federal government has benefited from historically low interest rates. That explains why the country has added trillions in debt without wrecking the economy. When rates rise as expected, the interest on the nation's debt will explode.
Ballooning interest payments will consume a larger and larger chunk of the federal budget. That will make borrowing more money to cover deficits an even riskier proposition. Each dollar borrowed will become more expensive for the federal government.
Since 72 cents of every dollar collected by the government comes from individual taxpayers, this is an issue that impacts almost every American. For that reason, those running for president should be required to offer solutions, not just lip service, to the impending entitlement crisis.
The concern is the unparalleled rise in entitlement costs. Federal budget expenditures for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and food assistance programs were 19.2 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) last year. In 2005, entitlements accounted for 15.5 percent
Spending on entitlements in the 2015 budget is projected at $2.45 trillion. That is 65 percent of the federal budget. Entitlements are categorized as mandatory spending, since the government is obligated to fund the programs. So-called discretionary spending comprises 29 percent of the budget.
Spending levels for mandatory programs are determined by eligibility rules. Once Congress sets those guidelines, the amount of money allocated from the federal budget is driven by estimates on how many people are expected to enroll in the programs. No cuts or increases are allowed.
Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan bluntly assessed the issue in a recent interview. "To me the discussion today shouldn't even be on monetary policy, it should be on how we constrain this extraordinary rise in entitlements." Greenspan headed the Fed from 1987 to 2006.
In 2014, the government had to borrow $39 billion just to cover the deficit in the Social Security program, the most costly federal entitlement. And the yawning gap between Social Security taxes and benefit payments is estimated to widen in coming years as more people reach retirement age.
The federal government lumps Social Security with Disability Insurance in the budget. The two entitlement programs combined are projected to reach $1.1 trillion in unfunded liabilities in the next ten years. By 2033, 18 years from now, government trustees estimate the programs will be insolvent.
For clarification purposes, an unfunded liability can be a confusing accounting term. It simply means that the programs will owe more money to current and estimated future beneficiaries than it has funds to pay for those benefits.
Absent some reforms in eligibility requirements, the federal government will be faced with Draconian choices. It can slice benefits to those receiving Social Security and Disability Insurance by 23 percent across the board or raise taxes by that amount. Neither choice has political appeal.
Soaring entitlement costs have increased pressure on the government to keep raising the nation's debt ceiling. At the end of July, the federal debt had climbed to a staggering $18.649 trillion. The interest on that debt, $229 billion this year, chews up 6 percent of all federal spending.
In 2015, the government expects to use its credit card to rack up another $583 billion in debt. The borrowed money pays for 16 percent of the government's budget expenditures. Despite all the claims to the contrary, Washington continues to spend money it does not have.
This year's $3.8 trillion federal budget is the largest in American history. And no one believes it will ever be lower or remain at the current level. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the country will return to trillion dollar annual deficits by 2025.
The reason for the projection is the aging of the population. As the Baby Boom generation retires, more people will be tapping into Social Security and other entitlements. Despite the inevitability, no one currently inside the Beltway or presidential candidate seems willing to offer solutions.
One reason for the do-nothing sentiment is the federal government has benefited from historically low interest rates. That explains why the country has added trillions in debt without wrecking the economy. When rates rise as expected, the interest on the nation's debt will explode.
Ballooning interest payments will consume a larger and larger chunk of the federal budget. That will make borrowing more money to cover deficits an even riskier proposition. Each dollar borrowed will become more expensive for the federal government.
Since 72 cents of every dollar collected by the government comes from individual taxpayers, this is an issue that impacts almost every American. For that reason, those running for president should be required to offer solutions, not just lip service, to the impending entitlement crisis.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Obama's Stealth Effort To Alter Your Neighborhood
If you like the neighborhood where you live, you may soon have no voice in what happens in your own subdivision. The federal government has a plan to strip suburbs and communities of self-rule as a way of restricting the freedom of Americans to control their surroundings.
That may sound Orwellian, but the future may be far worse than imagined after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) begins administering a vaguely-worded 377-page rule issued under the media radar on July 8. It went into effect on August 8.
Known euphemistically as the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule, it is the brainchild of social engineers in the Obama Administration. It is an attempt to achieve economic integration by arming the government with rules to control access to local education, transportation and parks.
And that's just a partial list of how extensive the federal tentacles will reach into every neighborhood in America. For instance, the government can ignore local zoning laws and insist low-cost housing complexes be built in exclusive single-family communities.
The new rules, two years in the making, will be phased in over an unspecified time. Provisions give the government the ability to force suburbs to effectively be annexed by cities to comply with racial and ethnic quotas. Local communities and suburban cities will be at the government's mercy.
In announcing the final rule, HUD secretary Julian Castro praised the regulatory incursion because it will "promote access to community assets such as quality education, employment and transportation." His carefully crafted words make it sound as if no one could oppose such a Utopian idea.
However, Castro tipped the government's heavy-handed approach when he added the following:
"Unfortunately, too many Americans find their dreams limited by where they come from, and a ZIP code should never determine a child's future."
Castro, rumored to be presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's choice for a running mate, provided a further hint of the rule's intent when he said it would "provide all Americans with access to safe, affordable housing in communities that are rich with opportunity."
The key word here is "rich." Translation of Castro's government-doublespeak: Your federal government wants to relocate poor people to neighborhoods with "wealthy" ZIP codes to provide them access to the best schools, parks, municipal services and low density housing.
In announcing the final rule, HUD secretary Julian Castro praised the regulatory incursion because it will "promote access to community assets such as quality education, employment and transportation." His carefully crafted words make it sound as if no one could oppose such a Utopian idea.
However, Castro tipped the government's heavy-handed approach when he added the following:
"Unfortunately, too many Americans find their dreams limited by where they come from, and a ZIP code should never determine a child's future."
Castro, rumored to be presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's choice for a running mate, provided a further hint of the rule's intent when he said it would "provide all Americans with access to safe, affordable housing in communities that are rich with opportunity."
The key word here is "rich." Translation of Castro's government-doublespeak: Your federal government wants to relocate poor people to neighborhoods with "wealthy" ZIP codes to provide them access to the best schools, parks, municipal services and low density housing.
If you have read this far, you are probably wondering: How come I haven't heard about this new rule?
The reason is that the Obama Administration and its lackey news media do not want Americans to learn about this intrusive federal power grab until it is too late for anything to be done about it. A front-page article in the Washington Post peremptorily defended the rule the day it was released.
Since then, the media has been silent about the explosive new regulations. Like so many maneuvers by this administration, the Obama team uses regulatory decrees to make laws that would never pass muster in Congress. As long as the masses remain mum, it will continue unabated.
Every American needs to get involved in this battle to save local rule. You have no right to complain if you shake your head and do nothing else. Act or you will be soon living with the consequences of federal government social engineering.
Every American needs to get involved in this battle to save local rule. You have no right to complain if you shake your head and do nothing else. Act or you will be soon living with the consequences of federal government social engineering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)